You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined the judge should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when father commenced custody proceedings in Texas:

Family Court improperly relinquished emergency jurisdiction for three reasons. First, there is no evidence in this record, and Family Court’s order fails to state any basis for finding, that the Texas court had “home state” jurisdiction, since the child had not resided there for six months immediately preceding commencement of the father’s Texas custody proceeding (Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-a[7]; 76[1][a]). Second, the record and Family Court’s order are also devoid of any factual basis for finding that any of the alternative jurisdictional bases applied to Texas. There is no evidence that the child at that time had a “significant connection” with Texas or that “substantial evidence . . . concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships” was available in Texas (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][b]). Finally, given the allegations in the neglect petition and the fact that Family Court had been informed … that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services would not investigate whether the father was a danger to the child because the mother and child resided in New York, Family Court should not have relinquished emergency jurisdiction “in the absence of any orders from the Texas court safeguarding the child[]” … .

Moreover, it is not clear whether New York might have had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(b), given that the child had not lived in Texas for the preceding six months, had lived in New York with his mother when the father filed his Texas custody petition, and was receiving medical care, attending daycare, and receiving services through ACS here. Accordingly, Family Court should not have denied the mother’s motion without first holding a hearing. Matter of Nathaniel H. (Nathaniel H.–Dayalyn G.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00927, First Dept 2-16-23

Practice Point: The judge in this neglect proceeding should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction upon learning of father’s custody proceeding in Texas. Findings of fact required by the Domestic Relations Law were not made and there was no assurance the Texas court would safeguard the child.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH NOT AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
New York Has Not Adopted the “First Clause” Doctrine for Interpretation Contracts with Conflicting Provisions
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; COUNSEL SAID A GUILTY PLEA MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS A MERELY TECHNICAL DEFECT WHICH DID NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
FINANCIAL ADVISOR IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL WHO CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN TORT BASED UPON A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A WORKER WHO WAS INJURED IN NEW YORK BUT LIVES IN NEW JERSEY CAN SEEK TREATMENT... THE CHALLENGES TO THE PROCEDURES FOR RELIGIOUS AND MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE...