You are here: / Family Law
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ENABLE THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) SUCH THAT THE CHILD WOULD NOT BE RETURNED TO GUATEMALA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have made findings to enable the child to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) such that the child would not be returned to Guatemala:

… [A] special immigrant juvenile is a resident alien who … 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. … [F]or a child to qualify for SIJS, a court must find that reunification of the child with one or both parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law … , and that it would not be in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . …

The Family Court should have granted that branch of the child’s motion which was for a specific finding that reunification with his father is not viable due to parental neglect. Based upon our independent factual review, the record demonstrates that the child’s father physically and emotionally mistreated the child, and prevented him from attending school for more than one year and on other occasions without a reasonable justification, and that the child’s mother failed to protect him from such mistreatment. Thus, the record supports the requisite finding that reunification with the child’s father is not viable due to parental neglect … . Matter of Jose F. M. P. (Francisco D. M. G.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02414, Second Dept 4-13-22

 

,

CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT TO THE APPELLATE COURT’S ATTENTION BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CHILDREN RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW OF THE CUSTODY RULING; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined changed circumstances brought to the Second Department’s attention by the attorneys for children rendered the appellate record insufficient for review of Family Court’s custody ruling. The matter was remitted:

… [T]he Family Court determined that it was in the best interests of the children for the mother to have sole residential custody. However, the respective attorneys for the children, in their briefs submitted to this Court, have brought to this Court’s attention certain alleged new developments since the order under review was issued in June 2019. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, changed circumstances may have particular significance in child custody matters and may render the record on appeal insufficient to review whether a child custody determination is still in the best interests of the children … . Matter of Fitzsimmons v Fitzsimmons, 2022 NY Slip Op 02411, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: In a child custody case, changed circumstances may render the record on appeal insufficient. Here the attorneys for the children brought the changed circumstances to the attention of the appellate court in their briefs and the court remitted the matter to Family Court.

 

,

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO FATHER THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S ACCESS TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father should not have been given the power to suspend mother’s access to the child:

… [T]he Family Court erred in including two provisions in the order appealed from that effectively allow the father to determine whether parental access with the mother should be suspended. These provisions do not appear to give the mother the opportunity to judicially challenge the father’s determinations concerning her compliance with the Personalized Recovery Oriented Services (PROS) program or whether she had unsupervised parental access with the child … , and, consequently, constitute an improper delegation of authority by the Family Court to the father to determine when the child can have parental access time with the mother … . Matter of Felgueiras v Cabral, 2022 NY Slip Op 02410, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have allowed father to control mother’s access to the child—an improper delegation of the court’s authority.

 

,

MOTHER’S MARIJUANA USE DURING PREGNANCY AND THE FACT THAT MOTHER AND CHILD TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’S BIRTH WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE NEGLECT; NEW YORK HAS LEGALIZED MARIJUANA USE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s marijuana use during pregnancy, and the fact that mother and the child tested positive for marijuana at the time of birth, were insufficient to demonstrate neglect:

… [T]he evidence that the mother smoked marijuana while pregnant with her youngest daughter, and that the mother and child both tested positive for marijuana at the time of the birth, is insufficient, in and of itself, to sustain a finding that the child was physically, mentally or emotionally impaired, or was in imminent danger of being impaired … . Here, as acknowledged by the agency, there was no evidence that the mother’s marijuana use impacted her judgment or behavior, or that the child was impaired or placed in imminent risk of impairment by the mother’s drug use … . Furthermore, the finding of neglect based solely on use of marijuana, without a finding of actual or imminent impairment of the child’s physical or emotional condition, is inconsistent with this State’s public policy legalizing marijuana, as reflected in the recent amendment to the Family Court Act (Family Court Act § 1046[a][iii] …). Matter of Saaphire A.W. (Lakesha B.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02382, First Dept 4-12-22

Practice Point: Because marijuana use has been legalized, proof mother smoked marijuana and mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the time of birth was not enough to demonstrate neglect. There must be proof, for example, that mother’s judgment was affected or the child was harmed in some way.

 

,

THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined New York did not haver jurisdiction over father’s petition for child support. The original child support order was issued in Virginia, where father resides. Therefore the New York petition was a petition for modification of the Virginia order, which cannot be addressed by a New York court:

The mother and the father are the parents of a child who was born in the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2007. In September 2020, the father commenced the instant proceeding in New York for child support pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Ct Act art 5-B; hereinafter UIFSA). * * *

“Under the [Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act] and UIFSA, the state issuing a child support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its child support orders so long as an individual contestant continues to reside in the issuing state” … . “Accordingly, a state may modify the issuing state’s order of child support only when the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” … . …

Here … support for the parties’ child was previously awarded to the mother in an order issued by a court within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia prior to the filing of the father’s petition. Accordingly … his petition was in the nature of a “modification” petition, rather than a “de novo” application … . Since the father resides in the Commonwealth of Virginia, that entity retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of its child support order, and New York does not have jurisdiction to modify it … . Matter of Salim v Freeman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02268, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: The original child support order was issued in Virginia, where father resides. Father’s New York petition for child support, therefore, was not a “de novo” petition, but rather was a petition for modification of the Virginia order, which a New York court cannot entertain.

 

,

THE “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE GRANDPARENTS APPLIED ONLY TO FATHER AND NOT AT ALL TO MOTHER; FOR THAT REASON THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the grandparents’ petition for custody of the child should not have been granted. Father has a criminal history and has been incarcerated. He was arrested with the child and drug paraphernalia in his car, where he was found asleep. Mother has no criminal history and no drug problems. The “special circumstances” which may have supported granting custody to the grandparents related only to father, not al all to mother. Therefore the grandparents’ petition should have been denied:

The record reflects that the child was not subject to surrender, abandonment or persistent neglect nor is the mother unfit. Although the father was the subject of an indicated report relative to the incident when he fell asleep in his vehicle with drug paraphernalia near the child, a finding of neglect was not indicated as to the mother. Moreover, this was an isolated incident and not part of a pattern of persistent neglect. Although there was evidence that the father has a history of drug abuse and criminal convictions, the mother has neither. There was no evidence that the child was at risk of being harmed while in the mother’s care; instead, the record demonstrates that the mother provided appropriate shelter, clothing, food and medical attention to the child. Additionally, the mother did not allow the father to have contact with the child in accordance with Family Court’s orders. As Family Court found that the grandparents did not meet their burden on extraordinary circumstances as to the mother, the court erred in engaging in a best interests analysis and, instead, the custody petition should have been dismissed … . Matter of Anne MM. v Vasiliki NN, 2022 NY Slip Op 02161, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here “special circumstances” which may have supported granting the grandparents’ petition for custody of the child with respect to father, did not apply at all to mother. Family Court should not have proceeded with a “best interests” analysis and should have denied the petition.

 

 

, , ,

IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT THREATENED TO FIND RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT WHEN HE DID NOT PROVIDE PROOF HE FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE HE WAS HOSPITALIZED, FAMILY COURT DID NOT ULTIMATELY GIVE RESPONDENT A “DEFAULT WARNING;” RESPONDENT AND HIS COUNSEL WERE PRESENT AT THE FACT-FINDING BUT WERE PRECLUDED BY THE COURT FROM PARTICIPATING; RESPONDENT HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON THE ABANDONMENT ISSUE; REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent father in this termination of parental rights proceeding was not in default and that he was entitled to present a defense. To explain his failure to appear, respondent said he was hospitalized but he did not provide any proof of hospitalization when the court requested it. The court then found respondent to be in default and precluded respondent and his counsel from participating in the termination hearing:

Petitioner and the attorney for the child argue that the appeal must be dismissed because the challenged order was entered upon respondent’s default. We disagree. In its written decision, Family Court stated that it had advised respondent’s counsel at the December 18, 2019 appearance that, if the requested medical documentation was not timely provided, it “would find [respondent] in default” and “the trial would be an [i]nquest.” Our review of the record, however, confirms that no such warning was given. Instead, the court cautioned that if respondent failed to comply, it would “proceed with the proceeding with regard to the termination of his parental rights.” This is not a default warning but notice that the hearing would go forward on January 15, 2020. However frustrating respondent’s noncompliance with the court’s reasonable directive to provide documentation of his hospitalization may have been, the key point here is that respondent and his counsel were in attendance at the fact-finding hearing. We fully appreciate that trial courts are vested with broad authority to maintain the integrity of their calendars. Under the circumstances presented, however, we conclude that Family Court abused its discretion in holding respondent to be in default and precluding any participation at the hearing … . Matter of Makayla NN. (Charles NN.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02165, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Here Family Court never gave a “default warning” to respondent father when he failed to provide proof he did not appear because he was hospitalized. Father, who was present at the fact-finding, should not have been found to be in default and precluded from participating in the termination of parental rights proceeding.

 

, , ,

THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the wife was entitled to maintenance in this divorce proceeding. The parties had been married for 44 years. The wife’s income was around $31,000 and the husband’s income was around $117,000. Both were retired. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court did not give any indication of its rationale for rejecting the wife’s application and adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“The amount and duration of a maintenance award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed provided that the statutory factors and the parties’ predivorce standard of living are considered” … .. “The court need not articulate every factor it considers, but it must provide a reasoned analysis of the factors it ultimately relies upon in awarding or declining to award maintenance” … .

Supreme Court wholly adopted verbatim the husband’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, without articulating the factors it considered or providing a reasoned analysis for its rulings on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. “[F]indings of fact submitted pursuant to CPLR 4213 (a) cannot constitute the decision of the court [as] mandated by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g)” … . Although Supreme Court failed to set forth its rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance, “because our authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, we need not remit this issue” … . Louie v Louie, 2022 NY Slip Op 02172, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce proceeding the judge did not give any indication of the rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance and wholly adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of fact cannot constitute a court’s decision. Rather than remitting the matter, the Third Department awarded maintenance.

 

,

EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND HER FAILURE TO PROPERLY TREAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF CHILD NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) presented sufficient proof to support a finding of neglect based upon mother’s mental illness (schizophrenia) which mother failed to properly treat. Evidence of an actual instance of child neglect is not necessary:

“Even though evidence of a parent’s mental illness, alone, is insufficient to support a finding of neglect of a child, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that the parent’s condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child” … . “Indeed, even when a child has not been actually impaired, a finding of neglect is appropriate to prevent imminent impairment, which is an independent and separate ground on which a neglect finding may be based” … . In such cases, the court is not required to wait until a child has already been harmed before it enters a neglect finding … . Proof of a parent’s “ongoing mental illness and the failure to follow through with aftercare medication is a sufficient basis for a finding of neglect where such failure results in a parent’s inability to care for [his or] her child in the foreseeable future” … . Matter of Khaleef M. S.-P. (Khaleeda M. S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02124, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here the Second Department determined proof of mother’s mental illness and her failure to properly treat it was sufficient to support a finding of child neglect, even the absence of a specific instance of child neglect.

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE AGAINST THE HUSBAND, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HIMSELF, WHEN HE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE INQUEST; BOTH THE COURT AND THE WIFE WERE AWARE THE HUSBAND HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH A SIGNIFICANT MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of divorce should not have been entered after the husband, who was representing himself, failed to appear at an inquest. Both the court and his wife were aware he had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, resulting in episodes when he could not care for himself or protect his interests:

… [A]t the conclusion of the inquest, the court explicitly acknowledged that the husband’s absence was likely attributable to his mental health. Thus, before entering judgment upon the husband’s default, there should have been an inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem was necessary (see CPLR 1201, 1203 …). Because there was no inquiry, the judgment must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including, if necessary, an inquiry into the husband’s current capacity … . Richard v Buck, 2022 NY Slip Op 02101, First Dept 3-29-22

Practice Point: Here both the court and the wife were aware the husband, who was representing himself and did not appear at the inquest, suffered from a significant mental health condition. The default judgment of divorce should not have been entered. The judgment was vacated. If necessary, Supreme Court should hold a hearing to determine the husband’s capacity.

 

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