You are here: / Family Law
, ,

HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING FATHER’S “CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES” PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING AND REQUIRING FATHER TO PAY MOTHER’S COUNSEL’S FEES EXCEEDING $12,000 BASED UPON A FINDING THAT FATHER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL IN VIOLATION OF A COURT DIRECTIVE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, NOT “THE NEED TO REGAIN MOTHER’S TRUST” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have focused on evidence father may have consumed alcohol in violation of the court’s directive and should have focused on the best interests of the child. Based solely on finding father had consumed alcohol and in the absence of a violation petition, father’s petition for a modification of custody based upon a change in circumstances was denied without a hearing and father was required to pay mother’s counsel’s fees exceeding $12,000. The counsel’s-fee ruling was reversed and the matter was remitted for a “change in circumstances” hearing:

As we must remit the matter to Family Court, we caution the court away from directing that the father completely abstain from the consumption of alcohol or dictating the specific type of treatment method the father must utilize beyond what is necessary to protect the child during his parenting time … . However, that is not to say that if the father’s treatment plan requires abstinence from alcohol that he is not required to comply with such plan. Similarly, we must stress that “the first and paramount concern of the court” must be the best interests of the child … , and that the court should not rely upon the father’s apparent need to “regain the trust of the mother” as it had so heavily throughout the orders on appeal.

We also agree with the father’s contention that Family Court abused its discretion in awarding $12,385.55 in counsel fees to the mother based upon the foregoing conclusion. “When exercising its discretionary powers [to award counsel fees], a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions as well as the complexity of the case and the extent of legal services rendered” … . Here, despite no violation petition being filed against the father, the court found that “the father’s willful violation” of the prior custody order and his “deceptions concerning his alcohol consumption” warranted the imposition of counsel fees. Essentially this resulted in sanctioning the father for filing the modification petition based upon his subsequent consumption of alcohol … . Considering our determination as to the court’s mistaken determination that the father was unable to demonstrate a change in circumstances, we … reverse the court’s award of counsel fees to the mother as an abuse of discretion. Matter of Jacob L. v Heather L., 2024 NY Slip Op 03520, Third Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: If a Family Court judge focuses on something other than the best interests of the child, here father’s apparent consumption of alcohol in violation of a court directive and mother’s need to trust father, an appellate court may reverse the judge’s rulings as an abuse of discretion, as it did here.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN A QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM (QRTP) AT EVERY PERMANENCY HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, applying an exception to the mootness doctrine (appellate relief had already been granted), determined Family Court has the decision-making authority to determine the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing:

… [W]e find that Family Court has the decision-making authority as to the appropriateness of the child’s continued placement in a QRTP at every permanency hearing (see Family Ct Act §§ 1088[b], 1089[d][2][viii]). A contrary reading goes against the express purpose of the Family First Act, which is aimed at reducing the use of institutional group placements for children in foster care by limiting the length of time that they can spend there. The Family First Act, codified in New York State through amendments to the relevant provisions in the Family Court Act and Social Services Law, explicitly seeks to “ensure[] more foster children are placed with families by limiting federal reimbursement to only congregate care placements that are demonstrated to be the most appropriate for a child’s needs, subject to ongoing judicial review ” … . Matter of Malachi B. (Tania H.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03534, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the authority to review and decide the appropriateness of a child’s placement in a Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP) at every permanency hearing.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WHILE INCARCERATED; HE MADE SERIOUS EFFORTS TO RECONNECT WITH THE CHILDREN AFTER HIS RELEASE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT RATHER THAN PERMANENTLY TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father, after his release from prison, made efforts to reconnect with his children which warranted a suspended judgment rather than permanent termination of his parental rights. While incarcerated father had not cooperated with efforts to place the children:

A suspended judgment “provides a brief grace period to give a parent found to have permanently neglected a child a second chance to prepare for reunification with the child” … . Notably, we may substitute our discretion for that of the trial court even in the absence of an abuse of discretion … , and here we conclude that a suspended judgment, rather than termination of parental rights, was in the children’s best interests … . At the time of the dispositional hearing—just two months after his release from prison—the father had found full-time employment, participated in weekly visitation with the children, had started communicating regularly with the children’s foster family regarding the children, and was in the process of finding housing and completing a mental health evaluation and parenting classes, while the children were reportedly happy to be visiting with the father regularly. “Given the child[ren]’s . . . young age, [the father’s] recommencement of regular visitation, . . . the sustained efforts on the part of [the father following his release from prison], and the Legislature’s express desire to return children to their natural parents whenever possible” … , we conclude that the father “should have been granted a ‘second chance’ in the form of a suspended judgment” … . Matter of Rodcliffe M., Jr. (Rodcliffe M., Sr.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03267, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the option of issuing a suspended judgment to give a parent a second chance to avoid termination of parental rights.

 

,

INCARCERATED FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED IN-PERSON VISITATION WITH HIS SON ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS; FATHER HAD STABBED MOTHER WHILE SHE WAS HOLDING THE CHILD AND FATHER HAD HARASSED MOTHER DURING PERMITTED PHONE CALLS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the award of in-person visitation by the child with the incarcerated father once every six months was not supported by the record:

Visitation with a noncustodial parent, including an incarcerated parent, is generally presumed to be in the best interests of the child … . However, that presumption is rebuttable, and “a demonstration that such visitation would be harmful to the child will justify denying such a request” … .

Here, the evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of visitation. The father is incarcerated in connection with his conviction for robbing and stabbing the mother while she was holding their child in her arms. The record indicates that the father has been incarcerated for most of the child’s life and that the father has had no meaningful relationship with the child … . … [T]he now five-year-old child would have to travel several hours each way to visit the prison at which the father is incarcerated, and the child is not comfortable being in a car or being away from her mother for an extended period … .

… [M]other testified that the father has used his permitted phone-calls with the child to harass the mother, despite her order of protection against him … . The position advocated by the attorney for the child was also entitled to serious consideration and supports modification of the court’s order … . Matter of Leroy W. (Shanequa W.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03238, First Dept 6-13-24

Practice Point: Here the presumption incarcerated father was entitled to in-person visitation with his son was rebutted.

 

, ,

ABSENT MOTHER’S ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGED FAMILY OFFENSE OR CONSENT TO AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PERMANENT (TWO-YEAR) ORDER OF PROTECTION WITHOUT HOLDING A FACT-FINDING HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter for fact-finding, determent the judge in this family offense proceeding should not have issued a permanent order of protection against mother without a fact-finding hearing. Unless a party admits the family offense or consents to an order of protection, the court may issue only a temporary order pending a fact-finding hearing:

… Family Court improperly issued an order of protection directing the mother, inter alia, to stay away from the father and the child for a period of two years, except for court-ordered parental access with the child. Upon expressing dissatisfaction with the mother’s behavior at the September 2023 conference, the court initially signaled an intent to issue a temporary order of protection. It then changed course and chose to issue an order of protection that it described as “permanent” and that would last “two years.” However, the court did so without holding a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the mother committed the family offenses alleged in the father’s petition. Nor did it obtain an admission from the mother that she committed such family offenses or secure her consent to the issuance of the order of protection. The court therefore failed “to observe the procedural steps set forth in Family Ct Act § 154-c(3)” before issuing that order … . … [S]ince a fact-finding hearing was not held and the court otherwise rendered its determination without receiving any evidence demonstrating that the mother committed the alleged family offenses, the record is not sufficient for this Court to render an independent determination on that question … . Matter of Acker v Teneyck, 2024 NY Slip Op 03043, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Although a Family Court judge can issue a temporary order of protection during a family offense proceeding, the judge cannot issue a permanent order of protection unless the opposing party admits the family offense, consents to the order of protection, or the court holds a fact-finding hearing.

 

THE CUSTODY/GUARDIANSHIP HEARING TOOK SEVEN YEARS AND THE CHILDREN RESIDED WITH GRANDMOTHER AND UNCLE DURING THAT TIME; THE EXTENDED DISRUPTION OF CUSTODY CAUSED BY THE PROTRACTED COURT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WARRANTING AN AWARD OF CUSTODY TO GRANDMOTHER AND UNCLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, noted that the six or seven years during which the children resided with grandmother and uncle did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” warranting granting grandmother and uncle, as opposed to mother, custody. Mother was seeking custody the entire time. The hearing started in 2014 and didn’t conclude until 2021:

… [T]he record does not support the Family Court’s determination that extraordinary circumstances existed so as to confer standing on the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle to seek guardianship and custody of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr. The evidence failed to establish that the mother voluntarily relinquished care and control of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., for an extended period of time … . Rather, the record evidences that the mother’s intention was for Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., to reside with the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle only temporarily during her brief period of incarceration so as to prevent them from being placed in foster care, and that the children would be returned to the mother’s care and custody as soon as she was released. The hearing testimony demonstrates that from the time the mother was released from her brief period of incarceration in November 2012, she has continued to attempt to regain custody of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., she immediately went to Brooklyn when she was released, she made a motion to vacate the temporary orders of guardianship and custody, and she filed a petition, inter alia, for custody of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr. Moreover, during the proceedings, the mother continued to have supervised and unsupervised parental access with Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., as permitted by the court, in Brooklyn, although she was still residing in Georgia with her other young children. Additionally, the prolonged separation between the mother and Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., occurred during the mother’s attempts to regain custody during these protracted proceedings, and, thus, the extended disruption of custody does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance … . When the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle first filed petitions for guardianship and custody between October 2012 and February 2013, Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., had only been residing with them for, at most, a few months; however, the hearing, which commenced in May 2014, did not conclude until March 2021, almost seven years later. “‘Indeed, the courts may not deny the natural parent’s persistent demands for custody simply because it took so long'” … . Matter of Teofilo R.F. v Tanairi R.F., 2024 NY Slip Op 02814, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: Although a prolonged disruption of custody can constitute “extraordinary circumstances” warranting awarding custody to a non-parent, that is not the case where, as here, the disruption was the result of protracted court proceedings (seven years).

 

, ,

THE CUSTODY-RELATED PRINCIPALS UNDERLYING MICHAEL B, 80 NY2D 299, APPLY TO THIS SURROGATE’S COURT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WHERE BOTH PARENTS SEEK TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SON AS HE TURNS 18; NEW EVIDENCE RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR A GUARDIANSHIP DETERMINATION; A NEW HEARING WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, in this Surrogate’s Court guardianship proceeding, determined the principals underlying Matter of Michael B, 80 NY2d 299, a custody case, should apply to this action to determine which parent should be appointed guardian of their developmentally disabled son, Joseph J D II, as he turned 18. Because new evidence was brought to light after the hearing, the record is no longer sufficient and a new hearing was ordered:

These appeals present us with the narrow question of whether a rule set forth by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Michael B. (80 NY2d 299)—that an appellate court may remit a child custody matter for a new hearing if subsequent developments reflect that the record has become insufficient to determine the issues presented—may be extended to this appeal from a Surrogate’s Court decree determining a guardianship contest between the parents of an adult with a developmental disability within the meaning of article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. In light of certain commonalities between this dispute and a custody dispute, including a focus on the best interest of the individual who is the subject of the proceedings, we conclude that the rule and underlying rationale set forth in Matter of Michael B. is equally applicable here. Thus, in this proceeding pursuant to Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act article 17-A, we will consider new facts and allegations brought to our attention by the parties for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the record before us is sufficient make a best interest determination, which is the same standard applied in appeals involving child custody. Upon doing so, we find that a new hearing is warranted because the record is no longer sufficient to determine what, at this juncture, is in the best interest of Joseph J. D. II. Matter of Joseph J.D. (Robert B.D.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02813, Second Det 5-22-24

Practice Point: The custody-related principals underlying Matter of Michael B, 80 NY2d 299, were applied to this Surrogate’s Court guardianship proceeding where both parents sought to be appointed guardian of their developmentally disabled son as he turned 18. Because new evidence came to light rendering the record inadequate, a new hearing was ordered.

 

, ,

EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FATHER USED DRUGS, EXPOSED THE CHILDREN TO DRUG-DEALING, OR STORED THE DRUGS WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD ACCESS THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence that father possessed four ounces of cocaine did not support the neglect finding. There was no evidence the children were exposed to drug-dealing and the drugs were stored above where the children could access them:

Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the children was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . … [Father’s] intent to sell these illicit drugs was insufficient, without more, to warrant a finding of neglect. The record … contained no evidence establishing that the father engaged in drug transactions within the house or that he otherwise exposed the children to drug-trafficking activities … . Nor was there evidence adduced at the hearing as to whether the father regularly engaged in the sale of drugs, or the manner in which he intended to sell the cocaine. Moreover, although the officers discovered the cocaine within the father’s bedroom closet, it was located on a five- or six-foot-high shelf and was otherwise stored in a manner that was not readily accessible to the children … . Finally, there was no indication in the record that the father ever used cocaine or any other illicit drugs. Absent evidence that the father’s conduct caused the requisite harm to the children or otherwise placed them in imminent danger of such harm, the court should not have found that he neglected them … . Matter of Jefferson C.-A. (Carlos T.-F.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02701, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Storing four ounces of cocaine in a closet where the children could not access it, without more, is not sufficient for a neglect finding against father. Although there was evidence father intended to sell the drugs, there was no evidence father used drugs or exposed the children to drug-dealing.

 

,

A STIPULATIION OF SETTLEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE A DUTY UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a person who was not a party to the stipulation of settlement in a divorce action (Kamaras) cannot be sued for an alleged violation of the stipulation:

The plaintiff opposed Kamaras’s motion for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that Kamaras knew of the stipulation and its terms and that Kamaras had a “duty” to “have [Chantal] execute the transfer documents to the marital property and return same to [Walner’s counsel].” … .

“‘A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation'” … . “It is well-settled law that parties to a contract cannot, under its terms, impose any liability upon a stranger to that contract” … . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, Kamaras demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by demonstrating that he was not a party to the stipulation and had not assumed any obligations under the stipulation … . Tema v Tema, 2024 NY Slip Op 02720, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Even if a person is aware of the terms of a stipulation of settlement, if that person is not a party to the stipulation, the stipulation does not impose a duty to act on them.

 

, ,

THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the foster parents, as persons legally responsible for the care of the child, were entitled to a hearing before the child was removed from their care:

Family Court Act § 1028(a) provides that “[u]pon the application of the parent or other person legally responsible for the care of a child temporarily removed under this part . . . , the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the child should be returned,” with two exceptions not relevant here … . Family Court Act § 1028(a) further provides that “[e]xcept for good cause shown, such hearing shall be held within three court days of the application and shall not be adjourned” … .

The phrase “person legally responsible” “includes the child’s custodian, guardian, [or] any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time” … . “The Court of Appeals, in interpreting Family Court Act § 1012(g), has held that ‘the common thread running through the various categories of persons legally responsible for a child’s care is that these persons serve as the functional equivalent of parents'” … . Further, “a person may act as the functional equivalent of a parent even though that person assumes temporary care or custody of a child,” as long as “the care given the child [is] analogous to parenting and occur[s] in a household or ‘family’ setting” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an applicant is a person legally responsible for the care of a child include ‘(1) the frequency and nature of the contact, (2) the nature and extent of the control exercised by the [applicant] over the child’s environment, (3) the duration of the [applicant’s] contact with the child, and (4) the [applicant’s] relationship to the child’s parent(s)'” … .

Here, the evidence in the record was sufficient to support a determination that the foster parents were persons legally responsible for the care of the child. The evidence demonstrated that the child, eight years old at the time of the foster parents’ application, had been under the foster parents’ care for most of his life. . Matter of Samson R. (Christopher R.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02710, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here the foster parents had cared for the eight-year-old for most of his life. They were “persons legally responsible for the care of the child” and therefore were entitled to a hearing before removal of the child.

 

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