You are here: / Family Law
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER MAKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, IT WAS NOT IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN TO HONDURAS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have issued an order making findings to allow the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS):

… [B]ased upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the children with their mother is not viable due to parental abandonment … . The children testified that the mother left when they were both only three years old, and that they have not seen or spoken to the mother since that time. Thus, the record establishes that the mother has had no involvement with the children for the majority of their lives … .

Further, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras, their previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . Francis testified that when the children lived with their paternal aunt in Honduras, they were “mistreat[ed] . . . emotionally and physically.” The children testified that when they then went to live with their father and stepmother in Honduras, the stepmother beat them and “wouldn’t give us food” when the father was not around, and that the stepmother was “verbally abusive,” telling the children, among other things, that they were “good for nothing.” The record reflects that the children had no one else to take care of them if they returned to Honduras. Consequently, the record demonstrates that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras … . Matter of Norma U. v Herman T. R.F., 2019 NY Slip Op 01421, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did have the authority to issue a sua sponte order vacating a consent order:

Upon the father’s admission to a willful violation of the support order and upon the father’s representation that he was employed, an order of disposition was entered upon the parties’ consent, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and committing him to a term of incarceration of five months, but suspending his commitment on the condition that he complied with the support order (hereinafter the consent order). Shortly after the consent order was entered, the Family Court received a telephone call, ostensibly from the father’s purported employer, informing the court that the father was not, in fact, employed. The court, over the father’s objection, sua sponte issued an order vacating the consent order (hereinafter the sua sponte order). The court then proceeded to a willfulness hearing, at the conclusion of which it issued the second order of disposition, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and directing that he be committed to the Orange County Jail for a period of six months unless he paid the purge amount of $19,839 (hereinafter the commitment order). …

As the father correctly contends, the Family Court lacked authority to issue the sua sponte order vacating the consent order (see CPLR 5019[a]) …). Moreover, the court issued the sua sponte order on the basis of unsworn statements made during a telephone call between the court and the father’s purported employer … . Accordingly, the sua sponte order must be reversed, and the commitment order, which was based in part on the sua sponte order, must be reversed as well. Matter of Schiavone v Mannese, 2019 NY Slip Op 01419, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

ORDER MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CHILD ESCAPED EL SALVADOR BECAUSE OF GANG VIOLENCE AND THREATS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the father’s motion for an order making the findings necessary for the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) should have been granted:

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record establishes that the child met the age and marital status requirements for special immigrant status … , and the dependency requirement has been satisfied by the granting of the father’s guardianship petition prior to the child’s 21st birthday … . Further, we find that reunification of the child with her mother is not a viable option due to parental abandonment … . The record reflects that after the child came to the United States in February 2014, she did not live with the mother because the “mother did not want to support her,” and that the child lived in close proximity to the mother, but the mother only visited the child once, in March 2014, and did not visit or even contact the child from that time through the time the father made the subject motion in April 2018. We also find that the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return to El Salvador, her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. The record reflects that the child was threatened by gang members in El Salvador while walking home from school, that the gang members “wanted to recruit [the child] and have her sell drugs” and told her that “she had to join them or they would murder her and her family,” that the gang members started texting her to “extort money from her,” that the child was sent to live with a family friend, but the threats continued, and that the child left El Salvador to escape from the gangs … . Matter of Rina M. G.C. (Oscar L.G.–Ana M. C.H.), 2019 NY Slip Op 01407, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

COMPLAINT AGAINST A FOSTER CARE AGENCY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT, LOSS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND EXPENSES FOR THE CHILDREN’S CARE AND TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff, the children’s guardian, stated causes of action against the foster care agency, Graham Windham, for negligent placement of the children and for loss of services of the children and expenses for care and treatment of the children:

“Counties and foster care agencies cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of foster parents, who are essentially contract service providers” … . “However, counties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home”… . Ultimately, to sustain a cause of action for negligent supervision, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . …

… [A] parent may recover damages measured by the pecuniary loss sustained by the injuries to the child, including the value of the child’s services, if any, of which the parent was deprived and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred in an effort to restore the child to health … . Thus, the court should not have directed dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), of so much of the third cause of action insofar as asserted against Graham Windham as sought to recover damages for the loss of the children’s services and the expense for their care and treatment. George v Windham, 2019 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

,

CHILD’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS TO ALLOW HIM TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE CHILD WOULD BE KILLED UPON RETURN TO EL SALVADOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the motion for an order making the findings necessary for the child to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) should have been granted:

Based upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the child with the father is not a viable option due to parental neglect… . The record demonstrates that when the child lived with the mother and the father in El Salvador, the father would physically mistreat the mother in the presence of the child by hitting her with objects such as a book and shoes, causing her bruising, and that, when the child attempted to defend the mother, the father would hit the child. The child also averred in his affidavit that “[w]hen [the father] would get angry, which was often, he became very violent toward me, yelling at me and punching me,” and the mother indicated that she had to send the child to live with his maternal grandmother in El Salvador because she was afraid of what the father would do to the child. The record also demonstrates that the father had provided no financial support for the child since the child was 10 years old. Thus, the father’s conduct, including acts of domestic violence perpetrated in the presence of the child, constituted neglect … , which established that the child’s reunification with the father is not viable … .

The record also does not support the Family Court’s determination that the child failed to show that it would not be in his best interests to return to El Salvador. The child testified that gang members in El Salvador tried to recruit him, but he refused to join, that after his refusal to join, the gang members threatened and assaulted him multiple times, “hurt me[ ] very bad,” “left me on the streets after they beat me up,” and would have killed him on one occasion if not for a police patrol “coming by that moment,” that he was afraid to go outside after the incident when he was almost killed, and that “if I go back [to El Salvador] they will kill me” … . Matter of Lucas F.V. (Jose N.F.), 2019 NY Slip Op 01079, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AS ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS AND SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR BRINGING THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s law firm (Villar firm) was entitled to attorney’s fees for work done before the firm was discharged without cause, the contempt action brought by the firm against defendant for failure to pay the fees as ordered by the court was valid and defendant should have been held in contempt, and the contempt proceedings were not frivolous or designed to harass. Therefore sanctions for bringing the contempt proceedings should not have been imposed:

To prevail on a motion to hold another party in civil contempt, the movant is “required to prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct” … . The movant in a civil contempt proceeding need not establish “that the disobedience [was] deliberate or willful” … . “Once the movant establishes a knowing failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal mandate, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant’s showing, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order” … . …

“In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a] …). “[C]onduct is frivolous if . . . (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c] …). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the Villar firm pursued the contempt motion to harass the parties for settling their case … . Rhodes v Rhodes, 2019 NY Slip Op 01113, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

,

ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT CUSTODY OR VISITATION ORDERS BY FAMILY OR SUPREME COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the order of protection prohibiting contact between father and daughter should be subject to orders of Family or Supreme Court:

Here, the order of protection issued in this criminal proceeding bars all contact between defendant and his child, and cannot be modified by a subsequent visitation order of Family Court or Supreme Court unless it is first modified or vacated by the criminal court … . We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the order of protection should be subject to any subsequent orders of custody and visitation, and we therefore modify the judgment by amending the order of protection in favor of defendant’s biological daughter so that contact will be allowed if ordered by Family or Supreme Court in a custody, visitation or child abuse or neglect proceeding … . People v Smart, 2019 NY Slip Op 01043, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) WAS INCORRECTLY APPLIED TO INCOME ABOVE THE STATUTORY CAP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the court did not correctly apply the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

… [T]he court erred in applying the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to the combined parental income in excess of the statutory cap … . It is well settled that “blind application of the statutory formula to [combined parental income] over [the statutory cap], without any express findings or record evidence of the [child’s] actual needs, constitutes an abdication of judicial responsibility and renders meaningless the statutory provision setting a cap on strict application of the formula”… . Here, in awarding child support on income above the statutory cap, the court considered only the father’s financial situation. “[T]he court made no factual findings that the child[ ] [had] financial needs that would not be met unless child support were ordered to be paid out of parental income in excess of [the statutory cap],” and we conclude that, “even if the court had made such a finding, there is no evidence in the record to support it” … . Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion, we fix the father’s basic child support obligation on the basis of the combined parental CSSA income up to the cap amount … . Benedict v Benedict, 2019 NY Slip Op 01042, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court abused its discretion by denying the application for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in this juvenile delinquency proceeding:

… [T]he Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.3 for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. This proceeding constituted the appellant’s first contact with the court system, he took responsibility for his actions, and the record demonstrates that he learned from his mistakes. During the pendency of the proceeding, the appellant readily complied with the supervision imposed by the court and his father’s supervision in the home, and he garnered praise from the Probation Department and school officials. Under the circumstances, including the appellant’s commendable academic and school attendance record, his mentoring of fellow students at his school, and the minimal risk that he poses to the community, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal was warranted … . Matter of Nijuel J., 2019 NY Slip Op 00876, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BY DISTRIBUTING A TAX REFUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the Support Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to reduce father’s child support by distributing a tax refund:

We agree with the mother, however, that the court erred in denying her … objection to that part of the Support Magistrate’s order that, in effect, distributed half of the parties’ tax refund to the father by reducing his child support obligation by that amount. We have previously stated that “the jurisdiction of Family Court is generally limited to matters pertaining to child support and custody . . . , and tax deductions or exemptions are not an element of support”… . “[T]he father’s entitlement to claim the child[ren] as [] dependent[s] for income tax purposes is not an element of support set forth in Family Court Act article 4, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction” to distribute the parties’ tax refund … . Therefore, … we remit the matter to Family Court to recalculate the father’s child support obligation without regard to the parties’ income tax refund. Matter of Bashir v Brunner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00746, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

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