You are here: / / THE CONDITIONAL DIRECTIVE THAT FATHER BE AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IF MOTHER...
, ,

THE CONDITIONAL DIRECTIVE THAT FATHER BE AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IF MOTHER DID NOT RETURN FROM SWEDEN WITH THE CHILD IS NOT ENFORCEABLE; A CHANGE IN CUSTODY MUST BE BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PUNISH A PARENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the conditional directive that sole custody of the child be awarded to father if mother did not return from Sweden with the child within 30 days was not enforceable. There was no application for a change of custody before the court. The conditional directive was issued to punish mother for moving to and remaining in Sweden and was not based upon the best interests of the child:

The paramount concern in any custody determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances  … . Reversal or modification of an existing custody order ” should not be a weapon wielded as a means of punishing a recalcitrant’ or contemptuous parent” … . In addition, “where no party has moved for a change in custody, a court may not modify an existing custody order in a non-emergency situation absent notice to the parties, and without affording the custodial parent an opportunity to present evidence and to call and cross-examine witnesses” … .

Here, the Family Court’s conditional directive that sole legal and physical custody of the child shall be transferred to the father if the mother did not return the child to New York City within 30 days was meant to punish the mother and was not based on the court’s determination of the best interests of the child. The court should not have considered a change in custody in the absence of an application for such relief with notice to the mother …. Further, the court’s conditional award of custody to the father was improper in light of the court’s determination otherwise that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in the custody of the mother, and considering, among other things, that the mother had always been the child’s primary caretaker, the father did not have overnight visits with the child, and the court had previously expressed concerns about the father’s ability to care for the child for an extended period of time … . Matter of Ross v Ross, 2020 NY Slip Op 03668, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

You might also like
BECAUSE MOTHER HAD RELINQUISHED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE MATERNAL GRANDFATHER FOR MORE THAN 24 MONTHS, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING BEFORE RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS DISCHARGED WITHOUT CAUSE AFTER A SETTLEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED; THE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED A JUDGMENT FOR THE CONTINGENCY FEE; RATHER THE ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED A CHARGING LIEN PURSUANT TO THE JUDICIARY LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED... ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED...