You are here: / / THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES...
,

THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the instruction that mother not “expose” the child to activities not in keeping with religious requirements during periods of her parental access was unenforceable. Mother identified as a member of the LGBTQ community, and considered herself an Orthodox Jew:

… [A] court oversteps constitutional limitations when it purports to compel a parent to adopt a particular religious lifestyle. “… ‘[I]t is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise'” … . A religious upbringing provision “should not, and cannot, be enforced to the extent that it violates a parent’s legitimate due process right to express oneself and live freely” … . Thus, where the effect of a religious upbringing provision is to compel a parent to himself or herself practice a religion, rather than merely directing the parent to provide the child with a religious upbringing, the provision must be stricken … .

… [T]he challenged restriction does not expressly require the plaintiff to herself comply with the rules of the child’s Orthodox Jewish Chasidic faith during periods of parental access. … [T]he provision in forbidding her to “expose” the child to any activities which violate the child’s Orthodox Jewish Chasidic faith has the same effect … . The only way for the plaintiff to ensure her compliance with the restriction is for her to comply with all religious requirements of the child’s faith during her periods of parental access, lest she “expose” the child to activities not in keeping with those religious requirements. … The defendant [father] was especially concerned that the child would be exposed to people involved in a “gay lifestyle” … . Such restrictions on a parent’s ability to “express oneself and live freely” go beyond requiring a noncustodial parent to support and enable the child’s religious practices, and impermissibly infringe on the noncustodial parent’s rights … . Weichman v Weichman, 2021 NY Slip Op 06211, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

You might also like
Disclaimer of Coverage Unreasonably Untimely as a Matter of Law
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.
THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT FOR SENTENCING EXTENDS TO RESENTENCING AND TO THE AMENDMENT OF A SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT, A DOCTOR, USED A PORTION OF THE TWO-FAMILY HOUSE AS A STUDY OR HOME OFFICE, THE EXCLUSION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES FROM LIABILITY FOR SIDEWALK DEFECTS APPLIED; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (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

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT... THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY RE: DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF...