You are here: / / Sole Custody to Mother Appropriate Because Voluntary Joint Custody No Longer...

Sole Custody to Mother Appropriate Because Voluntary Joint Custody No Longer Working

In affirming the grant of sole custody to the mother (in the face of a voluntary agreement of joint custody) because the parties’ relationship had deteriorated, the Third Department wrote:

Initially, “[w]here a voluntary agreement of joint custody is entered into, it will not  be  set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the [child]…, and “an order entered on consent, without a plenary hearing, is entitled to less weight” ….”[A] sufficient change [in] circumstances can be established where  . . . the relationship between  joint custodial parents deteriorates ‘to the point where they simply cannot work together in a cooperative fashion for the good of their children'” … .  Matter of Youngs v Olsen, 514669, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPEALABLE ORDER IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
MOTHER FAILED TO FIRST USE LESS DRASTIC CHILD-SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, MOTION TO HOLD FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROPERLY DENIED.
COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
THE EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS HOSPITAL QUALITY-REVIEW PROCEEDINGS DID NOT APPLY TO REPORTS ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).
BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CHARGED CRIMES WITH THE ELEMENT THAT THE VICTIM WAS LESS THAN 17; BOTH HAD THE WRONG BIRTH DATE FOR THE VICTIM WHICH THEREBY ALLEGED THE VICTIM WAS MORE THAN 17; THAT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT (THIRD 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

Summary Judgment in Neglect Proceeding Based Upon Proceeding Concerning Other... Downtown Improvement/Sanitary District Charges; Downtown Special Assessment...