You are here: / Family Law

DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined defendant mother was judicially estopped from arguing plaintiff was not a parent for the purpose of visitation. Defendant had previously successfully obtain an order requiring plaintiff to pay child support:

The defendant was judicially estopped from arguing that the plaintiff was not a parent for the purpose of visitation. First, by asserting in her child support petition that the plaintiff was chargeable with support for the subject child, the plaintiff assumed the position before the Family Court that the plaintiff was the subject child’s parent, as it is parents who are chargeable with the support of their children (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]). Next, based on her assertion that the plaintiff was chargeable with the subject child’s support, the defendant successfully obtained an order compelling the plaintiff to pay child support for the subject child … . Under this order, the plaintiff was required to pay child support for his children, including the subject child. Furthermore, the record does not support the court’s finding that the defendant unequivocally waived the right to child support. Therefore, the defendant is judicially estopped from arguing that the plaintiff is not a parent for the purpose of visitation … . Paese v Paese, 2016 NY Slip Op 07304, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

FAMILY LAW (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/VISITATION (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/CHILD SUPPORT (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE STATUTORY FACTORS, FORUM NON CONVENIENS FINDING REVERSED.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition should not have been dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. Father, who is incarcerated, was entitled to six visits per year with the child. Mother, unbeknownst to father, relocated to Georgia and cut off all communication between the child and father:

[A “forum non conveniens”] determination “depends on the specific issue(s) to be decided in the pending litigation,” and must involve consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute … .

Although Family Court articulated its consideration of each of the statutory factors, we disagree with the weight it accorded certain factors and find that it failed to view those factors in light of the sole issue to be decided in this proceeding, namely, whether the mother violated [the court order]. First, in considering whether the child or a sibling was the victim of violence, mistreatment or abuse that was likely to continue in the future … , Family Court found that the child was negatively affected by the father’s criminal actions, despite the fact that all of the parties agreed that this factor was not relevant, neither the child nor a sibling was involved in the 2008 [criminal case] case [against father] and Family Court had awarded the father six visits per year in 2011. Next, the father promptly commenced this proceeding four months after the mother relocated with the child … — which occurred without his knowledge or Family Court’s permission — and we find that the additional 12 months that it took to dispose of this proceeding does not militate in favor of finding that New York is an inconvenient forum. Further, the father and the paternal grandmother, whose testimony would be central to the issue of whether a violation occurred, are located in New York, and any testimony by the mother could be presented “by telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means” … . Matter of Snow v Elmer, 2016 NY Slip Op 07075, 3rd Dept 10-27-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE STATUTORY FACTORS, FORUM NON CONVENIENS FINDING REVERSED)/FORUM NON CONVENIENS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE STATUTORY FACTORS, FORUM NON CONVENIENS FINDING REVERSED)

, ,

SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a three-judge dissent, determined the search of a juvenile’s shoe at the police station was reasonable. Therefore, the weapon found in the shoe was admissible. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the dissent below did not present a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact:

Respondent initially told police on the street that he was 16 years old. Because he lacked identification, the police transported him to the precinct, where, nearly an hour later, he told them that he was only 15 years old. Thereafter, the officers treated respondent as a juvenile, placing him in a juvenile room and making him remove his belt, shoelaces and shoes as a protective measure until his parents were notified and he could be picked up from the precinct. Based on respondent’s representation that he was 16 years old and the officers’ observations of him in the street, the officers had probable cause to arrest respondent for disorderly conduct.

We also conclude that the limited search of respondent’s shoes was reasonable. The majority found no fault with the request that respondent remove his belt and shoelaces as a safety precaution; rather it was the request to remove his shoes that the majority held to be “far more intrusive than a frisk or patdown” … . However, the officers were not first required to suspect that respondent either possessed contraband or posed a danger to himself or officers before being directed to remove his shoes. In that regard, the limited search of respondent’s shoes while he was temporarily detained and awaiting the notification of his parents was a reasonable protective measure employed by police to ensure both the safety of respondent and the officers, and the intrusion was minimal … . Matter of Jamal S., 2016 NY Slip Op 07045, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/FAMILY LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

,

FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED.

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined, inter alia, father had been deprived of his right to counsel:

Reversal is required because the father was deprived of his statutory right to assigned counsel … . The record shows that after Family Court dismissed the father’s assigned counsel, it conducted several hearings in this custody matter, and granted a final order of custody to the mother, without the father’s presence and without reassigning him counsel. Matter of Melinda M. v Anthony J.H., 2016 NY Slip Op 06978, 1st Dept 10-25-16

FAMILY LAW (FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED)

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING AND INTERVIEWING THE CHILD.

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing and without interviewing the 13-year-old child:

… [P]etitioner submitted evidence of the younger child’s preference, his growing apprehension about staying with respondent [father], and respondent’s maltreatment of the child. She submitted evidence that she was addressing the mental health concerns that had led to her initial consent to relinquish custody to respondent and evidence that she had sought treatment for issues relating to a history of domestic violence and that she had obtained new living quarters for herself and the younger child. The child supported the petition and asked for an in camera hearing … .

Without meeting with the child or considering the sworn allegations of domestic abuse (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1]), the court granted the motion to dismiss. This was error.

Petitioner presented sufficient evidence to warrant a plenary hearing to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification of the custody order, including its limited visitation provisions and the grant of complete decision-making authority to respondent, and whether such a change is in the best interests of the child … . The child’s wishes, to be discerned from an interview, should be considered in making the determination … . Matter of Athena H.M. v Samuel M., 2016 NY Slip Op 06865, 1st Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING AND INTERVIEWING THE CHILD)/CUSTODY (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING AND INTERVIEWING THE CHILD)

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION.

The Third Department noted Family Court improperly delegated its authority to structure visitation and remitted the matter:

… [W]e find a sound and substantial basis in this record for Family Court’s decision to modify the prior visitation order by limiting the mother’s visitation to a counseling format — which the mother acknowledged was the best she could hope for given her strained relationship with the child … . That said, by effectively making further visitation contingent on the success of counseling and the father’s approval, Family Court improperly delegated its authority to structure a visitation schedule … . We conclude that the matter must be remitted to Family Court for a determination as to whether a resumption of visitation with the mother would be in the child’s best interests and, if so, under what conditions … . Matter of Christine TT. v Dino UU., 2016 NY Slip Op 06910, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION)

FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father (respondent) was denied due process when Family Court went ahead with proceedings to terminate his parental rights in his absence. Father was never informed that a final hearing or trial was scheduled:

A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights, but that right “is not absolute and must be balanced with the child’s right to a prompt and permanent adjudication”… . “Absent unusual justifiable circumstances, a parent’s rights should not be terminated without his or her presence at the hearing” … . Under the circumstances here, a brief adjournment to allow participation by respondent would not have significantly impinged upon the child’s right to a prompt hearing … , especially since respondent may have been the only witness regarding his defense that he had attempted to contact the child … . Because the record does not provide any indication that either respondent or his counsel was aware that the August 4, 2015 proceeding was scheduled as a final hearing or trial on the petition, and because the record likewise provides no indication that either was aware of the stay expiring on September 25, 2015, we find that respondent was denied “some opportunity to participate in a meaningful way” … . Thus, respondent is entitled to a new hearing, with new counsel assigned to represent him. Matter of Chloe N. (Joshua N.), 2016 NY Slip Op 06926,  3rd Dept 10-20-16

FAMILY LAW (FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)/PARENTAL RIGHTS, TERMINATION (FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS)

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES.

The Third Department noted: (1) Family Court improperly delegated the authority to determine mother’s visitation to a counselor; and (2) under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the child’s attorney to take a position that did not reflect the child’s wishes:

Considering the evidence as a whole and particularly considering the psychologist’s work with all of the parties and her reasoned explanation of how numerous factors led her to conclude that there was “no credible evidence of abuse” by the father but that there was evidence of “coaching, coercion and brainwashing” of the child by the mother, we find no reason to depart from Family Court’s determination to credit the psychologist. * * *

Family Court erred by delegating the determination of the mother’s visitation to the child’s counselor. A court cannot delegate its authority to determine visitation to a mental health professional … . * * *

… [W]e find no fault in the attorney for the child’s decision to advocate for a position contrary to the child’s wishes, of which Family Court was aware, given that such wishes were “likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to [her]” … . Matter of Zakariah SS. v Tara TT., 2016 NY Slip Op 06923, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

 

FAMIILY LAW (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION; CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VISITATION)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD’S ATTORNEY PROPERLY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO THE CHILD’S WISHES)

CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST.

The Second Department determined Family Court improperly left the conditions for father’s visitation with his child up to a therapist:

… [I]t is for the Family Court—not the child’s therapist—to exercise its own discretion to determine how, when, and under what terms and conditions the father’s visitation with the subject child … is to resume … . Matter of Rogan v Guida, 2016 NY Slip Op 06716, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

FAMILY LAW (CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST)

,

FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have granted mother’s objection to the support magistrate’s finding father did not willfully violate the support order. Proof that support payments were not made is prima facie proof of a willful violation requiring father to come forward with an explanation. Father offered no explanation:

Here, the father’s failure to satisfy his child support obligations constituted prima facie evidence of a willful violation … . This showing shifted the burden to the father to come forward with competent, credible evidence that his failure to pay support in accordance with the terms of the support order was not willful … . The father failed to satisfy this burden. There was no evidence that the father was financially unable to meet his child support obligations. Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted the mother’s objection to so much of the Support Magistrate’s order as determined that the father did not willfully violate the support order. Since the father’s violation of the support order was willful, the court was required to award an attorney’s fee to the mother … . Matter of Torres v Moran, 2016 NY Slip Op 06506, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

FAMILY LAW (FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED)/CHILD SUPPORT (FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED)

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