You are here: / / NEW YORK WOULD REMAIN “HOME STATE” FOR A CUSTODY MATTER IF...

NEW YORK WOULD REMAIN “HOME STATE” FOR A CUSTODY MATTER IF FATHER WRONGFULLY PREVENTED CHILDREN FROM RETURNING TO NEW YORK FROM BANGLADESH IN THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE PETITION.

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have concluded it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a custody matter without conducting a hearing. It was alleged father was wrongfully preventing the children from returning to New York from Bangladesh. If father prevented the children from returning to New York in the six month period before the petition was filed, New York, pursuant to the controlling statutes, would be the “home state:”

Under the Domestic Relations Law, a state may have jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding if the “state is the home state of the child” (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a]…). A “[h]ome [s]tate” is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]). The definition of a “[h]ome [s]tate” also permits a period of temporary absence during the six-month time frame necessary to establish home-state residency (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]…). In addition, it is established that a parent “may not wrongfully remove or withhold a child from the other parent for the purpose of establishing a home state’ for that child” … .

Here, there are disputed allegations as to the circumstances of the continued presence of the children in Bangladesh. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction without conducting a hearing as to whether the children were wrongfully prevented from returning to New York during the six-month period preceding the petition. If that is the case, New York remained the “home state” of the children in light of such wrongdoing … . Matter of Padmo v Kayef, 2015 NY Slip Op 09289, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

FAMILY LAW (JURISDICTION OVER CUSTODY, PARENT PREVENTS CHILDREN FROM RETURNING TO NEW YORK)/CUSTODY (JURISDICTION OVER CUSTODY MATTER, PARENT PREVENTS CHILDREN FROM RETURNING TO NEW YORK)/JURISDICTION (FAMILY COURT, JURISDICTION OVER CUSTODY MATTER WHERE PARENT PREVENTS RETURN OF CHILDREN TO NEW YORK)

You might also like
INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Implied Definite Term of Duration
PLAINTIFF BANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, A CONDITION PRECEDENT; DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD LIABLE FOR BITE BY TENANT’S DOG.
SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH HIGHLY UNLIKELY) THE TWO ASSAULT CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE SAME ACT, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL;... “TRIAL PREPARATION” EXCEPTION TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER A PHOTOGRAPHIC...