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
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER MAKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, IT WAS NOT IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN TO HONDURAS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct by Trial Judge Required New Trial
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN AN ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED; THE DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT (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

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