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
SMALL DEFECT THAT WAS UNDER THE HANDRAIL AND NOT IN THE WALKING SURFACE OF THE STAIRWAY WAS TRIVIAL AND NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Bill of Particulars After Four Years of Discovery Should Not Have Been Allowed
ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT.
No Fiduciary Duty Re: Purchase of One Shareholder’s Stock by Another in a Close Corporation
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INDICATED SHE DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL IN HER DEPOSITION, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET FROM TRACKED IN SNOW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance Doctrine Not Applicable

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

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S OBLIGATIONS RE: HAVING A PERJURIOUS DEFENDANT TESTIFY... INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES...