You are here: / Family Law

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO FATHER CONCERNING VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND IN KEEPING FATHER INFORMED ABOUT MOTHER’S HEALTH (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Family Court, determined Family Court should not have delegated authority to father to control some aspects of visitation, and should not have involved mother’s boyfriend, a non-party, in keeping father informed about mother’s medical or mental issues:

The court’s authority to set visitation cannot be delegated to a party … . We agree that the father can choose to temporarily suspend visitation while the mother is hospitalized for a mental health condition. However, Family Court went too far in giving the father — who is not a doctor or otherwise trained in recognizing and treating mental health conditions — that same authority in the vague situations where the mother is “decompensating or otherwise having an issue with her bipolar condition,” or permitting him to require supervision of visitation in the aftermath of those situations without further court intervention. We have no doubt that if the father believes or is informed that the mother is unstable, he will seek court permission to withhold or limit visits to protect the child … . The court also erred in directing the mother’s boyfriend — a nonparty, over whom the court had not obtained jurisdiction — to advise the father of any medical or mental issues that the mother may experience “as they are occurring or as soon as practicable thereafter” … . Matter of Aree RR. v John SS., 2019 NY Slip Op 07818, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

, ,

HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was necessary on whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction for the petition seeking an order of protection:

… [T]he petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 seeking an order of protection against Cynthia J. Brock. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that she and Brock were in an intimate relationship in that the petitioner was the paternal great grandmother of Brock’s child, and that she and Brock had “lived together in the past.” The petitioner further alleged that although her grandson and the child had moved out of her home a month earlier, Brock continued to routinely drop off the child at the petitioner’s home after Brock’s parental access time with the child, and used these opportunities to threaten, abuse, and annoy the petitioner. The petitioner also alleged that Brock telephoned the child on a daily basis, and verbally harassed the petitioner on the phone. Subsequently, Brock made an application to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the relationship between her and the petitioner did not qualify as an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). The Family Court granted the application and dismissed the petition.

The Family Court is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain proscribed criminal acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” … . For purposes of Family Court Act article 8, “members of the same family or household” include, inter alia, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . Expressly excluded from the ambit of “intimate relationship” are “casual acquaintance[s]” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … . Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis … . Relevant factors include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship … . Matter of Hamrahi v Brock, 2019 NY Slip Op 07781, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, ,

TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ABUSE-NEGLECT FACT-FINDING HEARING BECAUSE THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE WITNESS AT THE 1028 HEARING WAS UNAVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the transcript of the Family Court Act 1028 hearing (seeking the quick return of a child temporarily removed pending a fact-finding hearing) should not have been used to replace the abuse/neglect fact-finding hearing because the proof requirements are different:

Family Court Act § 1028 permits a parent to apply for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed from the custody of the parent pending the fact-finding hearing on the issue of abuse or neglect … . “[A] section 1028 hearing is intended to give a parent an opportunity for a prompt reunion with the child, pending trial” … . In analyzing an application for a child’s return under Family Court Act § 1028, a court must engage in a test balancing the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal … . Section 1028 hearings, however, were not intended to replace fact-finding hearings, as the evidentiary standards are different. Family Court Act § 1046 provides that “only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted” at a fact-finding hearing, whereas evidence “[i]n a dispositional hearing and during all other stages of a proceeding under” Family Court Act article 10 need only be “material and relevant” … . A determination on an application pursuant to section 1028 “should not be taken as any indication of what ultimate determination should be made by the Family Court as to [a] petition alleging abuse and neglect” … . “At a fact-finding hearing, any determination that a child is an abused or neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the evidence” … .

CPLR 4517, which governs the admissibility of prior testimony in a civil action, is applicable here … , as the Family Court Act does not prescribe the issue of whether testimony from a prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may be admitted into evidence on the petitioner’s direct case in a fact-finding hearing. Pursuant to CPLR 4517(a)(3), prior trial testimony of a witness may be used by any party for any purpose against another party if the court finds that such witness is dead or otherwise unavailable. In this matter, the Family Court made no such finding.

Here, the Family Court should not have admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing transcripts of testimony from the hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. As ACS now correctly concedes, the caseworker’s testimony at the prior hearing, which included hearsay statements, actually formed the basis of the court’s neglect finding at the subsequent fact-finding hearing. Matter of Louie L. V. (Virzhiniya T. V.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07592, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; CUSTODY PETITION MAY BE HEARD JOINTLY WITH A PERMANENCY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined than mother’s petition for custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing and noted that a custody petition may be heard jointly with a permanency hearing:

The appeal from the order dated September 27, 2018, has not been rendered academic by the permanency hearing order dated November 13, 2018, which apparently changed the permanency goal from working toward legal guardianship by the maternal grandmother to guardianship by a different relative. The order appealed from denied the mother’s petition for custody, and the issue of whether that order was proper will continue to affect the mother’s rights … .

Custody determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . Here, the record does not reveal the existence of circumstances that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the general right to a hearing … .

However, the petition for custody may be heard jointly with any permanency hearing held pursuant to Family Court Act article 10-A (see Family Ct Act § 1089-a[a] …). Matter of Barcene v Parrilla, 2019 NY Slip Op 07575, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCONVENIENT FORUM FACTORS MANDATED BY THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN AND FATHER WAS SEEKING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have relinquished jurisdiction without considering the factors required by statute before finding New York to be an inconvenient forum. Mother had relocated to Florida with the children and father brought a petition and an order to show cause alleging mother refused to allow telephone and electronic contact with the children:

… [M]other’s counsel made a request for dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (see Domestic Relations Law art 5-A [hereinafter UCCJEA]). The father opposed this request, advising that he had not received the notice of limited appearance and did not know that jurisdiction would be contested at the initial appearance. Following a brief discussion with counsel, Family Court granted the mother’s request, dismissed the petition, denied the relief sought in the order to show cause and directed all further proceedings to take place in Florida. The father appeals.

Family Court erred in summarily relinquishing jurisdiction. As the court acknowledged, it had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the UCCJEA … . Although a court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction upon finding that New York is an inconvenient forum and another state is a more appropriate forum … , such a determination must be made in accord with the statutory directives established within Domestic Relations Law § 76-f. The statutory requirements were not met here. Matter of Cody RR. v Alana SS., 2019 NY Slip Op 07471, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BASED UPON AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN A CRIMINAL MATTER BEFORE THE CHILD WAS BORN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined an order of protective issue in a criminal proceeding before the child was born did not prohibit contact between the child and father. Father’s petition seeking custody and/or parenting time should not have been dismissed on that ground:

At the initial appearance on the petition, Family Court stated that the order of protection had been issued in a criminal matter and that it barred the putative father from having any direct or indirect contact with the mother. The mother then moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the order of protection rendered the petition moot. Family Court agreed and granted the motion. The putative father appeals.

The order of protection at issue — a copy of which is not in the record but the terms of which we take judicial notice — was issued prior to the child’s birth and does not bar the putative father from having contact with the child. It is not, as a result, fatal to the putative father’s petition … . Remittal is therefore required for Family Court to consider whether an order of filiation should be issued (see Family Ct Act § 564) and, if so, whether contact with the putative father would be in the best interests of the child and could be accomplished without contravening the terms of the order of protection … . Matter of Justin M. v Valencia N., 2019 NY Slip Op 07453, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED AWARDING CUSTODY TO STEPMOTHER WITH VISITATION BY BOTH PARENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that extraordinary circumstances warranted awarding custody of the child to the stepmother with visitation from both parents. The child had been living with father and stepmother for years when father moved out:

… [T]he child was residing with the other parent — the father — pursuant to a court order. The mother did not originally expressly relinquish the child to the stepmother. Rather, the stepmother assumed parental responsibilities due to her relationship with the father and based on his custodial authority. Nevertheless, in considering the cumulative effect of all the issues, we note that the mother had very little contact with the child for five years, including not seeing him at all for three continuous years, while the child was at a formative age and being raised by the father and the stepmother. Starting in 2012, the mother began consistently exercising her visitation and has continued to do so. However, the mother remained uninvolved in the child’s medical and educational life and was only minimally involved in his extracurricular activities. * * *

Moving to the best interests of the child, he has lived with the stepmother since he was a toddler, has a close bond with her and was described as inseparable from his half brother, who also lives with them. The child has always attended schools in the same district, has an educational plan to address his difficulties, participates in sports in that district and all of his friends are there. The mother lives in a different school district. The stepmother has been managing the child’s medical conditions for a decade, whereas the mother did not even know the names of his doctors. The stepmother has been communicating with the mother regarding visits and providing the majority of the transportation; the mother has no vehicle and her driver’s license is suspended, although she drove to drop the child off on at least some occasions. Matter of Shanna O. v James P., 2019 NY Slip Op 07455, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

FIRING A SHOTGUN THROUGH A SCREEN DOOR INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THE CHILD WAS NOT HOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect finding against father was not supported by the evidence. Father fired a shotgun through the front door into the driveway when the child was not home. The fact that the child could have returned home and could have been in the driveway was not sufficient:

Although a finding of imminent danger can be established through a single incident or circumstance, the danger “must be near or impending, not merely possible” … . As such, it has been held that a finding of imminent danger is contingent on the child being present … .

Here, it is undisputed that the child was not present during the shooting. Despite this, petitioner and the attorney for the child argue that the child and the mother could have returned to the home at any time and traveled through the likely path of the shotgun pellets. However, this did not occur, nor can such danger be said to have been imminent as it was only hypothetical, rather than “near or impending” … . Put another way, the issue is not that there was no imminent risk because, fortuitously, nothing happened to the child, but rather that nothing could have happened under the particular scenario because the child was not home … . “While respondent’s conduct was far from ideal and it is possible to speculate about ways that events could have turned out differently for the child[], nonetheless, the record fails to establish that the child[] [was] in imminent danger” … . Matter of Jordyn WW. (Tyrell WW.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07460, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the petition, determined that respondent, who had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, was not provided sufficient information before admitting to a probation violation. Because of the collateral consequences of a “juvenile delinquent” adjudication, the appeal is not moot, even though the period of respondent’s custody and care under the Office of Children and Family Services had expired. In addition, the error did not required preservation:

Initially, we note that preservation of this claim was not required … . Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) requires a court to advise a respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and to question both the respondent and his or her parent, if present, as to whether the respondent committed the act contained in the admission, whether the respondent is voluntarily waiving his or her right to a fact-finding hearing, and whether the respondent is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders … . The May 2018 allocution did not meet these statutory requirements. Although Family Court did advise respondent, to some extent, regarding his rights, the failure to meet the statutory mandates rendered the allocution inadequate. Critically, although respondent’s mother was present, the court failed to question her regarding respondent’s waiver of the fact-finding hearing … or about his failure to attend counseling. Instead, respondent was merely asked whether he had sufficient time to speak to his parents about the allocution … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether respondent and his mother understood the possible specific dispositional orders that might result from his allocution … . Although it was stated that placement outside the home was an available option, the court did not “ascertain whether [respondent] and his parent[] were aware of the full extent of such a disposition” … . Matter of Elijah X., 2019 NY Slip Op 07464, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s Article 78 action seeking to vacate an order by the respondent judge severing two counts which had been combined in an indictment and removing the charges to Family Court. The People objected to removing the prosecution of a 16-year-old to Family Court. In order the facilitate the removal, respondent judge severed the two counts. The People unsuccessfully argued the judged did not have the authority to sever the counts, and therefore could not send the charges to Family Court:

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Use of the writ is, and must be, restricted so as to prevent incessant interruption of pending judicial proceedings by those seeking collateral review of adverse determinations made during the course of those proceedings” … .

There is no merit in the People’s contention that the court lacks the authority to sever charges that were joined in a single indictment. This argument would have validity in cases where charges were properly joinable in a single indictment. However, the law is clear that the determination of whether the charges were, in fact, properly joinable in the first instance, is a duty of the court that is not delegated to the prosecution or the grand jury.

The court has a duty to examine the indictment to determine whether joinder is proper pursuant to CPL 200.20(a) or (b). Notably, the People have not provided any precedent to support their position to the contrary. Courts routinely rule on the issue of whether charges in an indictment are properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2) and sever those charges that are not … .

While the People disagree with the court’s finding that the … charges were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b), determination of this issue is not before us in this article 78 proceeding. Rather, we are only asked, and we only have the authority, to determine whether the court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. Matter of Vance v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07358, First Dept 10-10-19

 

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