You are here: / Family Law
,

BECAUSE A LIBERTY INTEREST IS AT STAKE, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE REVOCATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, reversing the revocation of the suspension of the order of commitment, determined respondent was entitled to an opportunity to be heard because a liberty interest is at stake:

“The court may suspend an order of commitment upon reasonable conditions and is also authorized to revoke such suspension at any time for good cause shown” … . However, given the liberty interest at stake, the Family Court, before revoking a suspension of an order of commitment, must provide to a respondent an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses on the issue of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension … . Here, because the father was deprived of this opportunity, we must reverse the order of commitment appealed from and remit the matter to the Family Court … for a hearing and a determination thereafter of whether good cause exists to revoke the suspension. Matter of Gast v Faria, 2021 NY Slip Op 04549, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

, , ,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant-mother’s motion to hold plaintiff-father in contempt for having the child inoculated for common childhood diseases. The separation agreement required that the parties consult each other on health decisions for the child. Father did not consult with mother before having the child inoculated. The separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit plaintiff from having the child inoculated and the parties agreed the child would attend public school, for which inoculation is required. Therefore defendant was unable to demonstrate a violation of the separation agreement which prejudiced her:

The separation agreement provided that “[t]he parties shall continue to cooperate and consult with one another to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the [c]hild with respect to health.” Despite this language, on two occasions, the plaintiff, without first consulting with the defendant, took the child, who had not received any vaccinations since the age of two, to get vaccinated.

However, the parties’ separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit the plaintiff from having the child inoculated. Moreover, in light of the parties’ express intention to maintain the child’s enrollment in public education, and New York State’s then newly enacted public school vaccine mandate requiring such inoculations in order for the child to continue to attend public school (see Public Health Law § 2164; C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 70), the defendant cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure of the plaintiff to consult with her prior to having the child inoculated. Heffer v Krebs, 2021 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

, , ,

MOTHER’S ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS HEARING; THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS THEREFORE IMPROPER AND APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the default order terminating mother’s parental rights was improper because mother’s attorney was allowed to withdraw without notice to mother. Because the default order was improper, mother’s appeal is not precluded (default orders are not appealable):

In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b,respondent mother contends that Family Court erred in allowing the mother’s attorney to withdraw as counsel and in proceeding with the hearing in the mother’s absence. We agree. ” ‘An attorney may withdraw as counsel of record only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause and upon reasonable notice to the client . . . [, and a] purported withdrawal without proof that reasonable notice was given is ineffective’ ” … . Because there is no indication in the record that the mother’s attorney informed her that he was seeking to withdraw as counsel, the court should not have relieved him as counsel … . Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511 …), here, the absence of evidence that the mother was put on notice of her attorney’s motion to withdraw renders the finding of default improper, and thus the mother’s appeal is not precluded … . We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for the assignment of new counsel and a new hearing … . Matter of Calvin L.W. (Dominique H.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04470, Fourth Dept 7-15-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS OF THE PARENTS BEFORE AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER REQUIRED REMITTAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the psychological evaluations should have been made before awarding sole custody of the child to father:

The mother’s mental and emotional health was the central issue contested in this proceeding, and we conclude that the court abused its discretion in making its determination and awarding the father sole custody of the child without first considering the results of the psychological evaluations that it ordered … . Although a psychological expert testified at the fact-finding hearing on behalf of the father, that expert interviewed the parties and the subject child to assess whether the child had been sexually abused, and therefore he did not provide much information on the mother’s emotional functioning, the impact her mental health issues had on [*2]her ability to parent the child, or the fitness of either parent. Thus, on this record, we cannot say that there was sufficient evidence for the court to resolve the custody dispute without considering the court-ordered psychological examinations of the parents … . Matter of Pontillo v Johnson-Kosiorek, 2021 NY Slip Op 04455, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE CSSA APPLIES EVEN WHEN THE CHILD RECEIVES PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; DOWNWARD DEVIATION FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE SUPPORT LEVEL IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE PROPORTIONAL OFFSET METHOD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order should not have been denied:

It is well settled that “the CSSA [Child Support Standards Act] must be applied to all child support orders, regardless of a child’s receipt of public assistance” … . Here, the Support Magistrate purported to reduce the father’s obligation pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (10) because the father made additional expenditures to maintain his house to permit the child to stay there during the time that he stayed with the father. Such a reduction for extended visitation is permitted by section 413 (1) (f) (9), however, and that subdivision of the statute applies only where “the child is not on public assistance” … . Furthermore, we have previously stated that a determination to grant a downward deviation from the presumptive support obligation on the ground that the noncustodial parent incurred expenses while the child was in his or her care ” ‘was merely another way of [improperly] applying the proportional offset method’ ” … , and the proportional offset method of calculating child support has been explicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals … . Matter of Livingston County Dept. of Social Servs. v Hyde, 2021 NY Slip Op 04316, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

,

MOTHER VIOLATED A COURT ORDER BY RELOCATING TO ARIZONA WITH THE CHILD; HOWEVER, HER ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE BY FATHER WERE CREDIBLE AND WARRANTED GRANTING HER CROSS PETITION TO RELOCATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined mother’s cross petition to relocate with the child was properly granted, despite mother’s violation of a court order prohibiting her from permanently leaving Monroe County with the child without father’s consent, or without a court order allowing relocation. Mother testified that father was abusive and she feared for her life at times. Father denied all allegation of abuse. Family Court found mother’s testimony credible and did not credit father’s testimony:

Courts place considerable weight on the effect of domestic violence on the child … , particularly when a continuing pattern of domestic violence perpetrated by the child’s father compels the mother to relocate out of legitimate fear for her own safety … , or where the father minimized the past incidents of domestic violence … . Indeed, where domestic violence is alleged in a petition for custody, “the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child” … .

… [T]he court appropriately considered the fact that the mother unilaterally removed the child from the jurisdiction, determining that the mother “did not relocate to separate the father from the child, but instead acted in good faith to escape the threat of domestic violence” … . Although the court did not countenance the mother’s decision to relocate without permission, “it was the father’s [violent] conduct that prompted [her] move to [Arizona] in the first instance and triggered the resulting disruption of his relationship with his daughter” … . Furthermore, although the court did not expressly engage in the analysis required under Tropea (87 NY2d at 740-741), according deference to the court’s factual findings and credibility assessments … we conclude that “there is a sound and substantial basis in the record supporting the court’s determination that ‘relocation would enhance the child[‘s life] economically, emotionally, and educationally, and that the child[‘s] relationship with the father could be preserved through a liberal parental access schedule including, but not limited to, frequent communication and extended summer and holiday visits’ ” … . Matter of Edwards v Ferris, 2021 NY Slip Op 04306, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PETITIONER, THE DECEASED MOTHER’S COUSIN, IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, noted that a judge cannot delegate the authority to determine father’s parental access, here the mother’s cousin petitioned to become the child’s guardian:

… “[A] court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . In this case, the Family Court improperly delegated the determination of the father’s parental access to the petitioner. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, to expeditiously establish an appropriate schedule for the father’s parental access in accordance with the best interests of the child … . Matter of Madelyn E. P. (Christine L.-B.–Kevin O.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04228, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING, HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the separation agreement was not unconscionable, there were questions of fact whether the agreement was the product of overreaching requiring a hearing:

While the defendant waived the right to maintenance, this provision, by itself, is insufficient to render the agreement unconscionable … .

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing on the issue of whether the agreement should be set aside on the ground of overreaching. “Although courts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching, the general rule is that if the execution of the agreement is fair, no further inquiry will be made” … . No actual fraud needs to be shown in order to set aside an agreement, but “the challenging party must show overreaching in the execution, such as the concealment of facts, misrepresentation, cunning, cheating, sharp practice, or some other form of deception” … .

Here, the agreement reflects a vast disparity between the parties’ assets at the time of its execution. Moreover, the defendant’s submissions suggest that the plaintiff may have unilaterally selected and paid the defendant’s attorney, and that negotiations between the parties’ attorneys went on for approximately six weeks prior to the defendant’s initial consultation with her attorney. Marinakis v Marinakis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04218, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO FATHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE MOTHER’S PARENTING TIME AND TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have delegated to father its authority to supervise mother’s parenting time and telephone and electronic contact:

Family Court improperly delegated its authority over the mother’s supervised parenting time and telephone and electronic contact with the children to the father. “Unless [parenting time] is inimical to the children’s welfare, the court is required to structure a schedule which results in frequent and regular access by the noncustodial parent. In so doing, the court cannot delegate its authority to determine [parenting time] to either a parent or a child” … . Family Court ordered that the mother’s supervised parenting time “shall be arranged as to time, place, circumstances and supervisor as determined by the [f]ather” and that the mother shall have telephone, Facetime and/or other similar contact with the children “as permitted by the [f]ather.”

Although the father has sole custody of the children and, in such capacity, has discretion in the selection of an appropriate supervisor, Family Court failed to provide parameters with respect to the frequency of the supervised parenting time to which the mother is entitled and … failed to consider the logistical concerns in ensuring that she has frequent and regular access to the children … . Matter of Jessica HH. v Sean HH., 2021 NY Slip Op 04165, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A CHANGE IN CUSTODY SUCH THAT THE COUPLE’S SON, WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM, WOULD RELOCATE WITH FATHER TO MASSACHUSETTS, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING MORE FINANCIALLY SECURE THAN MOTHER; FAMILY COURT DID NOT GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO THE SON’S WISHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in a very close case where both parents love and want the best for their children (who have been diagnosed with autism), father did not demonstrate a sound basis for modifying the custody arrangement to allow relocation with his son to Massachusetts:

… [I]t is clear that the son is very strongly bonded to the mother. Indeed, he has lived with the mother for the last six years since the father moved to Massachusetts, except for short periods of visitation with the father. Moreover, the son has had very little visitation with the father since the 2019 holiday season due largely to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, although the father cites the living conditions at the mother’s home as the motivation for initially seeking custody, we find this questionable given that he testified that the condition of the mother’s home has long been problematic and that, despite this, he relocated to Massachusetts and left both children in her care. Although … issues with the hot water heater were no doubt problematic, that matter was remedied prior to trial. Even more troubling, however, is the father’s strong opposition to the son changing schools because the son has difficulty with change, yet he feels it is in the son’s best interests to relocate him to Massachusetts away from the mother and the life he has established with her. Although relocation would certainly enhance the son’s life, as his living conditions would improve due to the father being more financially secure, this is only one factor in our analysis … . Finally, although not dispositive, given the advanced age of the son [born 2005], as well as testimony regarding how intelligent he is, we find that Family Court did not give proper weight to his wishes … . Matter of Daniel G. v Marie H., 2021 NY Slip Op 04178, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

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