You are here: / / Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old...

Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings

The Third Department determined Family Court had jurisdiction over a family offense proceeding brought by a parent on behalf of her daughter against the respondent seeking an order of protection.  Both the daughter and the respondent were 13 years old. They had been boyfriend-girlfriend off and on since fifth grade.  There had been some sexual activity.  Family Court Act 812 gives Family Court jurisdiction over family offenses by a respondent against a “member of the same family or household.”  The legislature, in 2008, expanded the definition of “member of the same family or household” to include “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time.”  Respondent fit within that expanded definition:

The daughter testified that she and respondent had been classmates since kindergarten and began a “boyfriend-girlfriend” relationship in fifth grade that continued, on and off, through eighth grade. At first, the relationship consisted of holding hands, kissing and exchanging texts and phone calls. By sixth grade, according to the daughter, respondent was texting or calling her 5 or 10 times daily and becoming jealous, “controlling” and “isolat[ing].” The daughter testified that she and respondent had some sexual contact in sixth grade, including an incident in which he allegedly caused her to touch his erect penis at school in the presence of other students, and another in which he put his hand down her shirt to touch her breasts without her permission. According to the daughter, she and respondent did not date for most of seventh grade. However, late in that year they began talking again, and in eighth grade they met twice, each time at respondent’s request. The daughter testified that during the first encounter, she reluctantly acceded to respondent’s request for oral sex, believing that he would “leave [her] alone” if she did so. When they met the second time, they had sexual intercourse; the daughter testified that she asked respondent to stop and that he complied at first, but then continued. The daughter distanced herself from respondent after these events, and reported them to petitioner after she began having suicidal thoughts… . Matter of Samantha L v Luis J, 2014 NY Slip Op 08073, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

You might also like
Music Teachers Were Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Criteria for Professionals, Like Musicians, Who Do Not Lend Themselves to Direct Supervision or Control, Explained
THE SUBSTANCE FOUND ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S PERSON WAS NOT TESTED OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED AS A DRUG; THE DRUG POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION, AS WELL AS THE SMUGGLING, DETERMINATIONS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT.
Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful Misrepresentation” Even If “Unintentional”
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY TOLLED WHEN PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (THIRD DEPT).
Purchase Contract Properly Converted to a “Time Is of the Essence” Contract
Plaintiff’s Decedent Fell to His Death in a Gorge on Property Owned by Cornell University—Questions of Fact Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent Was “Hiking” within the Meaning of the General Obligations Law (which Would Relieve the University of Liability) and Whether the Dangerous Condition Was Open and Obvious
RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTLY QUESTIONED DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not Responsible... Defendant Not Given Adequate Time to Decide Whether to Testify Before the Grand...