You are here: / / MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS...
,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s request to relocate should have been granted:

We find that Family Court’s determination denying the mother’s relocation request and granting the parties joint legal custody is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. If not permitted to relocate, the mother’s only potential resource — besides public assistance — would be the father. Given the father’s significant criminal history — which includes domestic violence against the mother — this is not a situation we can countenance. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the father is willing or able to assist the mother or the child in any way. The undisputed evidence was that the father’s financial support and parenting time was limited, sporadic and offered at his whim. Indisputably, the mother has been the child’s primary caretaker, the father provided almost no financial support and his very limited relationship with the child existed only through the mother’s efforts. Moreover, given the father’s history and evidence of domestic violence, we do not believe that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests … . We note that, although not dispositive, the trial attorney for the child did not oppose the mother’s petition or her relocation request … .

We are mindful that our holding results in the child residing a significant distance from the father. The record indicates that the mother has consistently made the effort to remain in contact with the father, to send pictures and to initiate telephone calls and visits. We discern no basis upon which to conclude that she will not continue to do so. As the child grows, such contact will become more important and have a greater impact on the father’s ability to establish and maintain a relationship with the child. Accordingly, we remit this matter to Family Court to establish an appropriate schedule for telephone calls and parenting time with the father. Matter of Fisher v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 07014, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/RELOCATE (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, RELOCATE, (MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, NOT THE PRIOR RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL WITH THE LETTER ATTACHED, TRIGGERED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE SERVED WITH THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COULD BE REMEDIED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A TYPED NAME ON AN EMAIL MAY SUFFICE AS A SIGNATURE FOR STATUTE OF FRAUD PURPOSES, THE SAME IS NOT TRUE FOR AN ATTACHMENT TO AN EMAIL, WHICH CAN EASILY BE SIGNED BY THE SENDER (THIRD DEPT).
PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DO NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THEREFORE DO NOT START THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER GUILTY PLEA CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRING THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) EVALUATION BASED UPON THE EXPIRED 2012 GUIDELINES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD; A SECOND SLU EVALUATION BASED UPON THE CURRENT 2018 GUIDELINES HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BUT WAS NOT RELIED UPON BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).
Attesting Witnesses Did Not See Decedent’s Signature on the Will and One Attesting Witness Did Not Know the Document Was a Will—The Will Was Not Duly Executed and the Petition for Probate Was Properly Dismissed

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

MOTHER WAS NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS FORMING... APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID...