You are here: / / Alternating Custody on a Yearly Basis, Requiring the Child to Attend Two...

Alternating Custody on a Yearly Basis, Requiring the Child to Attend Two Schools, Was Not In the Child’s Best Interests

The Third Department determined that alternating physical custody between the parents on a yearly basis, requiring the child to attend two different schools, was not in the child’s best interests:

Here, based on the totality of the circumstances, we disagree with Family Court’s determination, and find that alternating physical custody on a yearly basis is not in the child’s best interests … . Although presenting differing arguments, both parents, as well as the attorney for the child, argue against this disposition on this appeal. As a result of the alternating school schedule in place previously, the child has missed activities and field trips at both schools, and this can only be expected to increase. The superintendent of the school district in Canada where the child’s school is located opined in a letter that the child’s social, emotional and academic development would best be served by attending only one school, and we agree. Despite the hardships and separation necessarily arising from the physical distance between the two parents, it is the child’s own stability that takes increasing precedence as he ages … . Matter of Nelson v Perea, 2014 NY Slip Op 04091, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

You might also like
In a Class Action Suit, Class-Representatives’ Failure to Keep In Touch With Their Lawyer Justified Their Withdrawal as Class Representatives
Evidence Insufficient to Support Neglect Finding, Criteria Explained/Repetition of Child’s Out-of-Court Statement Does Not Corroborate It
ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT-SEX-OFFENDER WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHO WERE VICTIMS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).
CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD USED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, AN SLU NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY PRIOR SLU TO THE SAME PART OF THE BODY; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).
SETTING A RETURN DATE LESS THAN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Father, Who Had Not Been Informed of the Birth of His Child Until After the Child Was Adopted, Was Properly Awarded Custody of the Child
THE PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, WITH THE GOAL OF FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION, AND THE CONCURRENT PERMANENCY PLAN TO RETURN THE CHILD TO THE CUSTODY OF MOTHER, HAD CONFLICTING END GOALS; THE PETITION TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN DIMSISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Allegations Supported the Existence of an “Implied Physician-Patient Relationship”... Father’s Status as an Untreated Sex Offender, Together with Mother’s...