You are here: / / Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial...
,

Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial of Mother’s Petition for Custody Reversed

The Second Department determined that the denial of mother’s petition for custody (and the grant of father’s petition) must be reversed because mother was denied her right to counsel. Three attorneys assigned to represent mother had been relieved. Family Court refused to assign another attorney and told mother to hire an attorney or proceed pro se. Although Family Court informed mother of the dangers of representing herself, mother never formally waived her right to counsel. Mother represented herself in the custody proceedings:

The Family Court Act enumerates “[e]ach of the persons [who] has the right to the assistance of counsel” (Family Ct Act § 262[a]). One such person is “the parent of any child seeking custody . . . in any proceeding before the court in which the court has jurisdiction to determine such custody” (Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]…). “[A]n indigent party has a right to assigned counsel in a Family Court custody proceeding” … . Where, as here, an indigent party has a right to assigned counsel, “this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing” … . An application by an indigent person for the assignment of new counsel may be granted only “upon [a] showing [of] good cause for a substitution” … . “Good cause determinations are necessarily case-specific and therefore fall within the discretion of the trial court” … . * * *

A party to a Family Court proceeding who has the right to be represented by counsel may only proceed without counsel if that party has validly waived his or her right to representation … . “To determine whether a party is validly waiving the statutory right to counsel, the Family Court must conduct a searching inquiry’ to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent” … . “The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding is a denial of due process which requires reversal, regardless of the merits of the unrepresented party’s position” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the mother waived her right to counsel … . Matter of Tarnai v Buchbinder, 2015 NY Slip Op 07671, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

You might also like
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
City Estopped from Denying Property Owner the Opportunity to Seek Discretionary Relief Re: the Payment and Acceptance of Tax Arrears—City’s Actions Misled Property Owner
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Abuse of a Student by a School Bus Monitor Raised Questions of Fact Re: Negligent Supervision of the Student, Negligent Supervision and Training of the Monitor, and Whether the Monitor Was Acting Within the Scope of Her Employment
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY’S DELAY IN NOTIFYING THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF DECEDENT’S BODY AND THE LOCATION OF DECEDENT’S REMAINS ENTITLES THE NEXT OF KIN TO DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF SEPULCHER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

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

Jury Should Have Been Instructed on Intoxication Where an Element of Some of... Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not Constitute...