You are here: / Family Law

Father Estopped from Moving to Vacate Order of Filiation Entered Upon Consent Despite “Somewhat Limited” Parent-Child Relationship

The Second Department determined father was estopped from challenging an order of filiation even though there was evidence the parent-child relationship was “somewhat limited:”

Here, the order of filiation was entered approximately 10 years prior to the instant petition, and the father had been paying child support during that time. In addition, the father sought, and was granted, visitation with the subject child, which he exercised, although sporadically. The father attended some of the child’s school functions and parent-teacher conferences, had telephone contact with the child, and saw the child on some of her birthdays. The child, who was 15 years old at the time the father’s petition was filed, was acquainted with some of the father’s family members, considered the father to be her father, and had never known any other father. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the father’s challenge to the order of filiation …, and “the evidence indicating that the parent-child relationship was somewhat limited did not preclude the application of [that] doctrine” … . Matter of Shawn H v Kimberly F, 2014 NY Slip Op 01610, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

,

New York Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody and Visitation Matters Due to Child’s Substantial Contacts with California

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly found that California, rather than New York, was the appropriate forum for determining child custody and visitation matters:

A court of this State which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it finds that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[1]…). The factors to be considered in making this determination include the length of time the subject child has resided outside the state, any agreement between the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction, the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence, and the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2]…). “Particularly relevant to the jurisdictional determination is whether the forum in which the litigation is to proceed has optimum access to relevant evidence” … . “Maximum rather than minimum contacts with the State are required” … . Greenfield v Greenfield, 2014 NY Slip Op 01434, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

Excessive Absences Do Not Establish a Parent’s “Educational Neglect”

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Family Court’s finding that mother neglected the child by failing to provide for the child’s educational needs.  The record demonstrated that the child was defiant, violent and difficult to control, and mother had made substantial efforts to provide for her education:

Although the child had an excessive amount of absences from school, such absences “do[] not, ipso facto, establish either the parental misconduct or the harm or potential harm to the child necessary to a finding of [educational] neglect under Family Ct Act 1012(f)(i)(A)” … . Here, the record shows that the mother faced obstacles in getting the child to attend school on a regular basis. The mother took the child to school for a period of time, but she was financially unable to escort the child to school on an ongoing basis … . Moreover, even when the child was present, she had a history of truancy, tardiness, leaving school early and loitering in the hallways. The record further demonstrates that the child was defiant, violent, and had a history of lying and threatening to harm herself when the mother did not allow her to do what she wanted. The child also suffered from mood disorder, and had continuous hallucinations that made sleep difficult. The child was eventually hospitalized, and was given a number of psychiatric diagnoses. As a result, she was prescribed medication that caused her to be drowsy and disoriented, which further exacerbated her unwillingness and inability to attend school.Under the circumstances, the mother was unable to control the child and, despite her best efforts, struggled to get the child to attend school regularly, as well as to her therapy and drug treatment appointments… .  Matter of Brianna R, 2014 NY Slip Op 01410, 1st Dept 5-4-14

 

Summary Judgment Finding Derivative Neglect Should Not Have Been Granted

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have granted summary judgment finding derivative neglect. Despite the recent finding of neglect of three other children (by consent), there were questions of fact about whether the conditions leading to the previous neglect determination were being addressed:

Family Court erred in granting summary judgment because triable issues of fact remain. Summary judgment is rarely used in Family Court proceedings, and is only appropriate when no triable issue of fact exists … . While proof that respondent previously neglected three other children was admissible on the issue of whether he neglected Karm’ny (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]), such proof alone typically is not sufficient to establish derivative neglect … . “Derivative neglect is established where the evidence demonstrates an impairment of parental judgment to the point that it creates a substantial risk of harm for any child left in that parent’s care, and the prior neglect determination is sufficiently proximate in time to reasonably conclude that the problematic conditions continue to exist” … . The prior neglect determination here occurred less than three months before the instant petition was filed, sufficiently proximate so as to give rise to an inference that the conditions leading to such determination still existed … . Despite that inference, the testimony from the Family Ct Act § 1028 hearing raised questions of fact regarding whether respondent was appropriately dealing with those conditions… . Matter of Karm’ny…, 516250, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

Mother’s Failure to Seek Medical Care for Child Coupled With Mother’s Mental Illness Supported Neglect Finding

The Third Department determined Family Court’s neglect finding was supported by evidence mother did not seek needed dental and medical care for her child and suffered from psychological problems which created an imminent risk of harm to the child:

To establish neglect, a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired due to the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]…). In determining the minimum degree of care, courts must objectively evaluate parental behavior in terms of whether “a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing” … . On this basis, a failure to provide adequate medical care and/or follow through with necessary medical treatment constitutes neglect… . * * *”While evidence of mental illness, alone, does not support a finding of neglect, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that a respondent’s condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental or emotional harm to a child”… . Matter of Josephine BB …, 516132, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

,

Criteria for Interpreting a Settlement Agreement Which Is Incorporated But Not Merged Into the Judgment of Divorce

In finding that a settlement agreement was not ambiguous and had been complied with by the mother, the Third Department explained the status of a separation agreement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce:

A settlement agreement that is incorporated into, but not merged with, a judgment of divorce remains an independent contract, binding on the parties and subject to the rules of contract interpretation … . “Where the language of the agreement is clear, the court must determine the intent of the parties by examining the agreement itself” … .”Whether language is ambiguous is a matter of law to be determined by the court, and in rendering this determination a court may not add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used” … . Matter of Drake v Drake, 516960, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

Stipulation of Settlement Not Unconscionable/Provision Relating to Child Support Invalid Because No Indication Parties Were Advised of the Relevant Portions of the Child Support Standards Act

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have vacated a stipulation of settlement as unconscionable. However, the provision in the stipulation relating to child support was invalid because it did not indicate the parties were advised of the relevant portions of the Child Support Standards Act. The court explained the criteria for unconscionability in this context:

“A stipulation of settlement which is made in open court by parties who are represented by counsel and who unequivocally agree to its terms will not be set aside absent a showing that the stipulation was tainted by mistake, fraud, duress, overreaching or unconscionability” … . As relevant here, a stipulation of settlement is unconscionable if it “is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the … judgment of any person of common sense” … . However, a stipulation of settlement is not unconscionable “simply because it might have been improvident or one-sided” … . The defendant here, as the party seeking to vacate the stipulation of partial settlement, had the burden of showing that its terms were unconscionable … . O’Hanlon v O’Hanlon, 2014 NY Slip Op 01303, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted Awarding Sole Custody to Plaintiff

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had correctly found a change in circumstances justifying a change in the custody arrangement (sole custody awarded to the plaintiff). Despite the stipulation allowing liberal visitation by the plaintiff, the defendant did not comply with the agreement:

“Where parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time [*2]of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the children'” … . In determining the child’s best interests, the court must look to the totality of the circumstances … . “As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [c]ourt’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .In this case, the critical issue facing the Supreme Court was the parties’ relative abilities to foster a relationship with the noncustodial parent and to cooperate in coordinating long-distance visitation. As we have stated, “one of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination” … . In contrast, “[w]illful interference with a noncustodial parent’s right to visitation is so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” … . Alvarez v Alcarez, 2014 NY Slip Op 01286, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

Father Demonstrated Child Was Constructively Emancipated/Child Support Obligation Terminated

The Second Department determined Family Court should have terminated father’s child support obligation because the child was “constructively emancipated:

””It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21″ … . “However, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may forfeit any entitlement to support. A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment”… . ” [W]here it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his [or her] child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his [or her] visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent’… . Such a breakdown in communication between a parent and a child may result from the parent’s “malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse” … . Where a child justifiably refuses to continue a relationship with a parent due to such parental conduct, the child will not be deemed to be self-emancipated … . “The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it”… . * * *The evidence at the hearing established that the father consistently made a serious effort to maintain a relationship with the subject child during the relevant time period. The testimony adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the father regularly called the subject child at the mother’s home, but his calls would either go unanswered, or, according to the mother, the subject child would refuse to speak with him. The father testified that he left messages indicating his willingness to participate in counseling with the subject child, but these offers were not accepted. On special occasions, the father left gifts and cards for the child that the child did not acknowledge. The father also contacted the child’s therapist and suggested therapeutic visitation with the child. However, the child refused this offer. In addition to demonstrating the father’s serious efforts to maintain a relationship with the child, the evidence demonstrated that, during the relevant period of time, the father’s behavior was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with the subject child. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the father satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the subject child was constructively emancipated, and a finding in the father’s favor in connection with this issue is warranted by the facts. Matter of Jurgielewicz v Johnston, 2014 NY Slip Op 01325, 2nd Dept 2-26-14

 

Review of Stipulated Custody Arrangement Warranted by Change of Circumstances/Seriousness of Mother’s Alcohol-Related Behavior Increased

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court finding that a change in mother’s alcohol-related behavior warranted a review of the custody arrangement set out in a stipulation:

When parties enter into stipulations resolving custody issues, those stipulations will not be modified unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation, and unless modification of the custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child[]” … . Here, although the father admittedly was aware of the mother’s issues with alcohol at the time that he agreed to share custody with her, evidence of the mother’s continuing and escalating problems in this regard, coupled with her subsequent alcohol-related arrests and the indicated child protective services reports, “was sufficient to constitute a change in circumstances requiring a review of the existing custody arrangement in order to determine whether [such arrangement] continued to be in the child’s best interests” … . Accordingly, Supreme Court should have undertaken a best interests analysis. Matter of Kiernan v Kiernan, 515662, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

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