You are here: / Family Law

An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court Act 812 Does Not Necessarily Involve Sexual Intimacy

An “intimate relationship” (Family Court Act 812) must exist before one party to the relationship can petition Family Court seeking relief based upon family offenses. The Third Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed the petition on the ground that one party identified as heterosexual and the other as homosexual, indicating there was no sexual relationship. Sexual intimacy is not required to establish an “intimate relationship” under the Family Court Act. On the other hand, cohabitation, standing alone, is not enough. The matter was sent back for a determination (re: the existence of an “intimate relationship”) applying he statutory factors:

… [W]e agree with petitioner that her implicit acknowledgment that she had not had a sexual relationship with respondent did not justify Family Court ruling, as a matter of law, that the two did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 812 (1) (e). Initially, “the governing rule of statutory construction is that courts are obliged to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Turning to the relevant provision, Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction includes family offense petitions involving people who are or were previously engaged in an “intimate relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Factors relevant to determining the existence of an intimate relationship “include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…).

Considering these enumerated factors, the Legislature unambiguously established that the phrase “intimate relationship” is not limited to relationships that include sexual intimacy (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…). Matter of Arita v Goodman, 2015 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity Acknowledgment Precluded Vacation of the Acknowledgment

The Third Department noted that petitioner, in his petition to vacate his acknowledgment of paternity, stated that he signed the acknowledgment in spite of his being aware the child was not his. Therefore, his signature was not procured by fraud and the petition did not state a ground for vacation:

“Once 60 days have elapsed following the execution of an acknowledgment of paternity, the mother or acknowledged father may challenge that document in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden of proof on the party challenging the voluntary acknowledgment” … . To establish material mistake of fact, a party must demonstrate that such mistake “was truly material — i.e., substantial and fundamental to the nature of the [acknowledgment] — so as to entitle a party to void that document” … . To establish fraud, a petitioner must show that he or she justifiably relied on the respondent’s fraudulent statements or representations at the time the acknowledgment of paternity was signed … .

Here, in his petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, petitioner alleged that his signature was procured either by material mistake of fact or fraud based upon respondent’s history of infidelity. However, the petition also explained that petitioner put his name on the birth certificate of the child “despite all parties acknowledging that it was [another man’s] child.” Because petitioner’s claim that he knew that he was not the father of the child negates a finding of fraud or material mistake of fact, as such findings are necessarily predicated on a lack of knowledge … , petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts constituting fraud or material mistake of fact … . Matter of Joshua AA. v Jessica BB., 2015 NY Slip Op 07718, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial of Mother’s Petition for Custody Reversed

The Second Department determined that the denial of mother’s petition for custody (and the grant of father’s petition) must be reversed because mother was denied her right to counsel. Three attorneys assigned to represent mother had been relieved. Family Court refused to assign another attorney and told mother to hire an attorney or proceed pro se. Although Family Court informed mother of the dangers of representing herself, mother never formally waived her right to counsel. Mother represented herself in the custody proceedings:

The Family Court Act enumerates “[e]ach of the persons [who] has the right to the assistance of counsel” (Family Ct Act § 262[a]). One such person is “the parent of any child seeking custody . . . in any proceeding before the court in which the court has jurisdiction to determine such custody” (Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]…). “[A]n indigent party has a right to assigned counsel in a Family Court custody proceeding” … . Where, as here, an indigent party has a right to assigned counsel, “this entitlement does not encompass the right to counsel of one’s own choosing” … . An application by an indigent person for the assignment of new counsel may be granted only “upon [a] showing [of] good cause for a substitution” … . “Good cause determinations are necessarily case-specific and therefore fall within the discretion of the trial court” … . * * *

A party to a Family Court proceeding who has the right to be represented by counsel may only proceed without counsel if that party has validly waived his or her right to representation … . “To determine whether a party is validly waiving the statutory right to counsel, the Family Court must conduct a searching inquiry’ to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent” … . “The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding is a denial of due process which requires reversal, regardless of the merits of the unrepresented party’s position” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the mother waived her right to counsel … . Matter of Tarnai v Buchbinder, 2015 NY Slip Op 07671, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not Constitute the Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment Required for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined the motion for a finding that reunification with one or both of petitioner’s parents was not viable (re: an application for special juvenile immigrant status) was properly denied. The relationship with the juvenile’s parents in Guatemala had never broken down due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. The fact that the juvenile’s parents could not afford to pay for the juvenile’s education did not constitute abuse, neglect or abandonment:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) … and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile immigrant to qualify for special juvenile immigrant status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]…).

Here, the record reflects that Jeison was living with both of his parents in Guatemala until March 2012, when, with their consent, he traveled to the United States to escape gang violence and pursue his studies. After his arrival in the United States, Jeison began to reside with the petitioner, who provided him with food, clothing, and shelter, and Jesion remained in frequent contact with his parents. The inability of Jeison’s parents, who live in poverty, to provide him with a college education, or with financial assistance, does not support a finding that his reunification with his parents was not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law … . Matter of Jeison P.-C. (Conception P.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07665, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

Under the Unique Circumstances of this Case, the Neglect Adjudication Should Have Been Vacated Upon Compliance with the Conditions of the Suspended Judgment

The Second Department determined, under the unique circumstances of this case, Family Court should have vacated its neglect adjudication after the parent complied with the conditions of the suspended judgment. The neglect was apparently based upon lead levels:

Although facts sufficient to sustain the petitions were established, neglect petitions may nevertheless be dismissed if “the court concludes that its aid is not required on the record before it” (Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). Under the discrete circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed dismissal of the petitions after the expiration of the six-month suspended judgment period, as the aid of the court was no longer required. However, the court should have also exercised its discretion by directing that, upon the dismissal of the petitions, the adjudication of neglect shall be vacated (see Family Ct Act § 1061). As a general rule, a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment does not eradicate the prior neglect finding (see Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1053 at 57). Here, however, there are a number of factors warranting the vacatur of the neglect findings. The parents’ underlying conduct was aberrational in nature, the lead condition at the family home has been abated, the children’s blood lead levels after the six-month suspended judgment period were within acceptable ranges, the parents fully complied with the conditions of the suspended judgment, there is no risk that the circumstances of lead exposure will recur, and there is no likelihood that these circumstances will warrant further judicial proceedings (see Family Ct Act § 1051[c]…). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have directed that, upon the dismissal of the petitions, the adjudication of neglect shall be vacated. Matter of Anoushka G. (Cyntra M.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07658, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, , ,

Wilfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt/Supreme Court Properly Drew a Negative Inference from Defendant’s Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination

In an extensive opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of civil contempt re: an order in a matrimonial matter. The Court of Appeals determined Supreme Court properly drew a negative inference from defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that “wilfulness” is an element of civil contempt:

… [N]owhere in Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3] is wilfulness explicitly set forth as an element of civil contempt (Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]…). Indeed the only mention of wilfulness for civil contempt is in § 753 [A] [1], which is not at issue in this case as it applies only to “[a]n attorney, counsellor, clerk, sheriff, coroner,” or someone otherwise selected or appointed for judicial or ministerial service. In contrast, Judiciary Law § 750, the criminal contempt provision, permits a court to impose punishment for criminal contempt only for “wilful disobedience to its lawful mandate” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]…). This statutory language makes clear that where the legislature intended to require wilfulness, it knew how to do so, and any omission of such element is intentional … . …

Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a wilfulness requirement for civil contempt… . El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 2015 NY Slip Op 07579, CtApp 10-20-15

 

Family Court Has the Statutory Authority to Impose a Jail Term for Willful Violation of a Child Support Obligations

Reversing the support magistrate, the Second Department determined Family Court does have the authority to impose a jail term for willful violation of child support obligations:

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and cannot exercise powers beyond those which are granted to it by statute … . However, Family Court Act § 451(1) specifically provides the Family Court with continuing plenary and supervisory jurisdiction over a support proceeding until its judgment is completely satisfied … .

Family Court Act § 460(1)(e) provides that, where a party has defaulted in paying any sum of money due as required by an order directing such payment, the court shall make an order directing the entry of a judgment for the amount of child support arrears, “unless the defaulting party shows good cause for failure to make application for relief from the judgment or order directing such payment prior to the accrual of such arrears.” However, Family Court Act § 460(3) also makes clear that the entry of a money judgment is a form of relief mandated “in addition to any and every other remedy which may be provided under the law including, but not limited to, the remedies provided under the provisions of section four hundred fifty-four of this act” (Family Ct Act § 460[3]). The remedies provided by Family Court Act § 454 include a provision authorizing the court to commit a respondent to jail for a term not exceeding six months upon a finding that the respondent has willfully failed to obey any lawful order of support (see Family Ct Act § 454[3][a]). Matter of Damadeo v Keller, 2015 NY Slip Op 07267, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

 

,

Controverted Custody-Related Issues Cannot Be Decided Based Upon “In Chambers” Conferences, A Full Hearing Is Required

The Second Department determined a new trial on all custody issues was necessary because Supreme Court refused to allow testimony on certain controverted allegations (parental alienation and use of corporal punishment). Supreme Court erroneously relied upon extensive “in camera” discussions which, Supreme Court determined, had revealed the issues to be “sporadic and inconsequential.”  The Second Department noted that all controverted custody issues should be decided only after the issues are addressed in a hearing:

” ‘[A]s a general rule, it is error to make an order respecting custody based upon controverted allegations without the benefit of a full hearing’ … . Here, the Supreme Court, after holding ‘extensive’ in camera discussions with counsel on the issues of excessive corporal punishment and parental alienation, refused to allow testimony on these controverted issues, stating that they were ‘sporadic and inconsequential.’ Instead, the Supreme Court directed that only ‘positive’ aspects of the parties’ parenting be presented on the record. This was error, since the court cannot base a significant portion of its decision on off-the-record conferences …”. Minjin Lee v Jianchuang Xu, 2015 NY Slip Op 06784, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection

The Second Department determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Family Court Act 812 and could not, therefore, issue an order of protection to a person, Kirton, who was not a party to a family offense proceeding. Family Court’s jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding is limited to certain acts which occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (Family Ct Act § 812[1]…). [M]embers of the same family or household include, among others, persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time… ” [internal quotation marks omitted] Here the party to whom the order of protection was issued, Kirton, was not related in any way to, was not a member of the household of, and did not have an intimate relationship with the petitioner, Cambre (from whom Kirton was ordered to stay away):

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only those powers conferred upon it by the New York Constitution or by statute … . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (Family Ct Act § 812[1]…). “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … .

Here, Kirton and Cambre have no direct relationship … . The record … demonstrates that they met for the first time during the course of the court proceedings, and have no ongoing relationship … . Accordingly, the undisputed facts establish that there is no “intimate relationship” between the parties within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)… . Consequently, since the parties do not have an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (1)(e), the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the order of protection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Matter of Cambre v Kirton, 2015 NY Slip Op 06242, 2nd Dept 7-22-15 

 

,

Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated to Support Neglect Finding

In affirming Family Court’s neglect finding, the Second Department noted that the children’s out-of-court statements, if sufficiently corroborated, will support a finding of neglect. Here the children’s statements were cross-corroborated among them, and were corroborated by the testimony of a school nurse and caseworkers:

In a child protective proceeding, unsworn out-of-court statements of the subject child may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect … . The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statement has been reliably corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports a finding of neglect … . Moreover, where the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded considerable deference on appeal … .

Here, a preponderance of the evidence supported the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the child Tapharye C. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on him … . Contrary to the father’s contention, out-of-court statements by the subject children were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of a school nurse and the caseworkers employed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, who had also observed the evidence of physical injury sustained by Tapharye, as well as by the children’s own cross-corroborating statements … . Matter of Hayden C. (Tafari C.), 2015 NY Slip Op 06241, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

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