You are here: / / An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court...

An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court Act 812 Does Not Necessarily Involve Sexual Intimacy

An “intimate relationship” (Family Court Act 812) must exist before one party to the relationship can petition Family Court seeking relief based upon family offenses. The Third Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed the petition on the ground that one party identified as heterosexual and the other as homosexual, indicating there was no sexual relationship. Sexual intimacy is not required to establish an “intimate relationship” under the Family Court Act. On the other hand, cohabitation, standing alone, is not enough. The matter was sent back for a determination (re: the existence of an “intimate relationship”) applying he statutory factors:

… [W]e agree with petitioner that her implicit acknowledgment that she had not had a sexual relationship with respondent did not justify Family Court ruling, as a matter of law, that the two did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 812 (1) (e). Initially, “the governing rule of statutory construction is that courts are obliged to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Turning to the relevant provision, Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction includes family offense petitions involving people who are or were previously engaged in an “intimate relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Factors relevant to determining the existence of an intimate relationship “include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…).

Considering these enumerated factors, the Legislature unambiguously established that the phrase “intimate relationship” is not limited to relationships that include sexual intimacy (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…). Matter of Arita v Goodman, 2015 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A CHANGE IN CUSTODY SUCH THAT THE COUPLE’S SON, WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM, WOULD RELOCATE WITH FATHER TO MASSACHUSETTS, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING MORE FINANCIALLY SECURE THAN MOTHER; FAMILY COURT DID NOT GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO THE SON’S WISHES (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO FATHER CONCERNING VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND IN KEEPING FATHER INFORMED ABOUT MOTHER’S HEALTH (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE, A TORT (THIRD DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DIRECTING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR TO RETURN TO THE CAR AFTER IT PULLED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT AND CONDUCTING A SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOMEOWNER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR (THIRD DEPT).
IF THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S LOCATION OUT-OF-STATE AND DID NOT EXERCISE “DUE DILIGENCE” IN SECURING HER RETURN TO NEW YORK THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK WOULD NOT STOP RUNNING BASED SOLELY ON HER ABSENCE; HEARING REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).
A RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING DOES NOT AFFECT THE NYS COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT REGULATIONS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER “MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS” BUT WHICH EXEMPT POLICIES PROVIDED BY “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS” DO NOT IMPAIR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (THIRD DEPT).
THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY IN CREATING THE HOST FAMILY PROGRAM FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING REQUIRED REMITTAL FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD 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

Custody Should Not Have Been Awarded to Nonparent Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity...