You are here: / Family Law

Joint Custody Inappropriate Where Parents Can Not Cooperate​

In affirming Family Court’s decision to award custody to mother because of the evidence that mother and father could not cooperate, the Second Department wrote:

“[J]oint custody is encouraged primarily as a voluntary alternative for relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in mature civilized fashion” … . “However, joint custody is inappropriate where the parties are antagonistic towards each other and have demonstrated an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child'” …. Since the record here is replete with examples of hostility and antagonism between the parties, indicating that they were unable to put aside their differences for the good of the child, the Family Court erred in awarding the parties joint legal custody of the subject child …. Rather, an award of sole legal custody to the mother is in the child’s best interests … . Matter of Wright v Kaura, 2013 NY Slip Op 03105, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

Father’s Application for Dismissal of Maternal Aunt’s Custody Petition (After Death of Mother) Granted

After the child’s mother died, petitioner, the child’s maternal aunt, sought custody.  In granting the father’s application to dismiss the petition, the Second Department wrote:

As between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody which cannot be denied absent a showing of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other similar extraordinary circumstances …. A nonparent seeking custody of a child against the wishes of a parent has the initial burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances …. Once extraordinary circumstances are found, the court must then make the disposition that is in the best interests of the child … .  Here, the petitioner failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing with regard to the child’s best interests … . Matter of Andracchi v Reetz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03090, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

 

,

Legal Criteria for Determining Visitation Rights of Incarcerated Father Clarified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, held that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of a child’s visitation with an incarcerated parent and that denial of such visitation must be supported by “substantial evidence.” In order to clarify the law in this area, the court explained:

A rebuttable presumption that a noncustodial parent will be granted visitation is an appropriate starting point in any initial determination regarding custody and/or visitation. Moreover, the rebuttable presumption in favor of visitation applies when the parent seeking visitation is incarcerated. A parent who is in prison does not forfeit his or her visitation rights by being incarcerated. “[P]etitioner’s incarceration, standing alone, does not make a visitation order inappropriate,” but a demonstration “that such visitation would be harmful to the child will justify denying such a request” …. In deciding whether the presumption is rebutted, the possibility that a visit to an incarcerated parent would be harmful to the child must be considered, together with other relevant facts. Visitation should be denied where it is demonstrated that under all the circumstances visitation would be harmful to the child’s welfare, or that the right to visitation has been forfeited. In speaking of the manner in which the presumption of visitation may be rebutted, the Appellate Division has frequently used the terms “substantial proof” and “substantial evidence.” “[T]he sweeping denial of the right of the father to visit or see the child is a drastic decision that should be based upon substantial evidence” … . This language is intended to convey to lower courts and practitioners that visitation will be denied only upon a demonstration “ that visitation would be harmful to the child “ that proceeds by means of sworn testimony or documentary evidence. Matter of Granger v Misercola, No 72, CtApp, 4-30-13

 

, ,

Juvenile Delinquency Petition Jurisdictionally Defective; Insufficient Allegations that Pills Were a Controlled Substance

The Fourth Department determined a juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective because it included only the conclusory allegation that the juvenile possessed Adderall without any evidentiary facts to support it:

The petition alleged that respondent knowingly and unlawfully sold a controlled substance, i.e., Adderall (see Penal Law § 220.31).The Court of Appeals has made clear that “[s]tanding alone, a conclusory statement that a substance seized from a defendant was a particular type of controlled substance does not meet the reasonable cause requirement” … . Petitioner must provide factual allegations that establish a reliable basis for inferring the presence.  The petition here is supported by only the conclusory statements of respondent’s classmate and an officer that the substance was Adderall. Their statements are not “supported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold was actually[Adderall]” … .  Matter of Brandon A, CAF 12-01651, 231, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Mental Health Counseling Can Not Be Made a Condition of Visitation and Court Can Not Delegate Authority to Determine When Visitation Should Be Resumed

In upholding Family Court’s denial of visitation to the mother, the Fourth Department noted:  “The court erred, however, in directing the mother to engage in mental health counseling as a condition of visitation and in delegating its authority to the children’s counselor to determine when a resumption of visitation would be appropriate … .”  Matter of Roskwitalski, v Fleming, CAF 12-01090, 370, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Hearsay Evidence in Neglect Proceeding Was Not Admissible—Petition Dismissed

In reversing Family Court and dismissing a neglect petition against the father, the Fourth Department determined the hearsay evidence presented against the father was inadmissible:

At the fact-finding hearing…, “only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted” (§ 1046 [b] [iii]). Here, “[t]he evidence offered in support of the petition against the father consisted almost entirely of out-of-court statements made by the mother to a police officer and caseworker[s] concerning a domestic dispute” …. Those statements were not admissible against the father in the absence of a showing that they came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule … Contrary to the statement of Supreme Court, we conclude that the hearsay statements were not admissible “under article 10” of the Family Court Act (see generally § 1046 [a]). Matter of Nicholas C, CAF 11-01532, 305, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Father Whose Parental Rights Had Been Terminated Had Standing to Seek Modification or Vacatur of Order of Protection

The Fourth Department determined that a father whose parental rights had been terminated had standing to seek modification or vacatur of a ten-year-old order of protection.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 656, the court may issue an order of protection in conjunction with any other order issued pursuant to article 6, i.e., an order terminating parental rights. We conclude that the order terminating the father’s parental rights is separate and distinct from the order of protection entered in conjunction with that termination order. Thus, the father has standing to challenge the validity of that separate order of protection.  Matter of Anna B …, CAF 12-00562, 303, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Incarcerated Father Entitled to Reinstatement of His Petition for Visitation

In reversing the dismissal of an incarcerated father’s petition for visitation with his nine-year-old child, the Fourth Department wrote:

Here, we conclude that “the record is not sufficient to determine whether visitation [with the father] would be detrimental to [the child’s] welfare” …  Additionally, neither the mother nor the [attorney for the child] presented any evidence rebutting the presumption that visitation with the father is in the child’s best interests, and the record does not otherwise contain any evidence rebutting that presumption … .  Matter of Brown v Divelbliss, CAF 12-00555, 234, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Inability of One of Two Children to Get Along with Custodial Parent Was a Sufficient Changed Circumstance to Justify the Award of Custody of that One Child to the Other Parent

The Fourth Department affirmed Family Court’s ruling that the father had demonstrated a change of circumstances warranting the change of custody for one of two children based upon the mother’s strained relationship with that one child:

Here, the parties vary only in their ability “to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development” …, and the court implicitly concluded that the mother was the less fit parent with respect to that factor …. The court determined that it was in Kaitlyn’s best interests to reside with the father because of the stress caused by the mother’s interactions with her, but that it was in Danielle’s best interests to continue residing with the mother because she had learned to cope with her mother’s personality. “Although the separation of siblings is unfortunate” …, here the children have different needs.  Indeed, this “is one of those rare cases where the breakdown in communication between the parent and child that would require a change of custody is ‘applicable only as to the best interests of one of [two] children’ ” …. Matter of O’Connell, v O’Connell, CAF 12=01649, 232, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

Family Court Failed to Apply Equitable Distribution to Marital Assets and Failed to Give Wife Credit for Enhanced Earnings Generated by Husband’s Master’s Degree

The Fourth Department determined the trial court erred in failing to equitably distribute all or portions of an investment account, a 403-b deferred compensation account and preretirement death benefits.  In addition the Fourth Department determined the wife was entitled to a portion of her husband’s enhanced earnings from his master’s degree.  The underlying principles and authority for the wife’s entitlement to these assets and earnings are described in the decision.  Lauzonis v Lauzonis, CA 12-00188, 209, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

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