Archive for the ‘visitation’ Category
Sunday, July 5th, 2009
A divorce case could easily last for a year or, occasionally, much longer. Therefore, it is common for the parties to seek various forms of relief from the court while the action is pending. This type of relief is commonly referred to as pendente lite and is usually obtained by making a motion, brought by an order to show cause. Such motion is usually supported by affidavits, exhibits, and statements of net worth. A pendente lite motion may seek such things as temporary custody of children, temporary schedule of visitation with the minor children, temporary child support, temporary maintenance, exclusive possession of the marital residence, temporary order of protection, interim award of attorneys fees, interim award of expert fees, and an order restraining marital assets. Since pendente lite motions are made on expedited basis, not all facts may be known at the time the motion is brought. Once the relief sought in the pendente lite is granted, the court’s decision is unlikely to be reversed on appeal since numerous cases have held that the proper remedy for objections to a pendente lite order is a plenary trial. As the court stated in Penavic v. Penavic, 60 A.D.3d 1026 (2nd Dept. 2009), “[t]he best remedy for any perceived inequities in the pendente lite award is a speedy trial, at which the disputed issues concerning the parties’ financial capacity and circumstances can be fully explored.” After the final decision is made, the trial court has the power to adjust the pendente lite relief.
The most significant form of pendente lite relief in many cases is temporary maintenance. As the court stated in Mueller v. Mueller, 61 A.D.3d 652 (2nd Dept. 2009), “pendente lite awards should be an accommodation between the reasonable needs of the moving spouse and the financial ability of the other spouse . . . with due regard for the preservation standard of living”. It is the burden of the party seeking pendente lite relief to demonstrate the need for the award sought. The standard of living previously enjoyed by the parties is a relevant consideration in assessing the reasonable needs of a temporary maintenance applicant.
One critical issue that can be addressed by a pendente lite motion is preservation of marital assets. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 234, a court has broad discretion in matrimonial actions to issue injunctive relief in the interest of justice to preserve marital assets pending equitable distribution. Place v. Seamon, 59 A.D.3d 913 (3rd Dept. 2009). Such request for restraints on property transfers can be granted upon the movant demonstrating that the spouse to be enjoined “is attempting or threatening to dispose of marital assets so as to adversely affect the movant’s ultimate rights in equitable distribution”.
Pendente lite financial relief is usually retroactive to the date of filing of the motion.
For many, getting exclusive occupancy of the marital residence during the pendency of a divorce action can be as important as the ultimate divorce itself. Yet the emotional need to be free of the company of one’s spouse is never enough. The courts do not lightly infringe upon the right of a spouse to remain in his or her home even where, for example, that spouse continues an adulterous relationship, or the marital residence was owned by the other spouse prior to the marriage.
Where both parties remain in the home when the application for temporary exclusive occupancy is brought before the court, the party seeking occupancy must show that the other party is a threat to the safety of person(s) or property. The party seeking such relief must present detailed allegations supported by third party affidavits, police reports and/or hospital records may be needed to convince the court that the application is not an effort to force the other party out of the house. Even then, if the other party contradicts the allegations of the application with his or her own sworn affidavit, the court may order that a hearing be held to resolve the conflicting versions of the facts. Occasionally, the evidence of the threat to safety is sufficiently persuasive that a court will dispense with the requirement of a hearing, and grant an order of exclusive occupancy based only upon a review of the papers submitted. As I have written before, such relief can also be obtained from the Family Court on expedited basis and, occasionally, on ex parte basis, if the safety of a party is at issue.
A pendente lite motion which requests either child support, maintenance or attorneys fees, must include a statement of net worth as an exhibit, even if the statement of net worth has been filed separately.
One form of relief that is typically not available as a part of a pendente lite application, is the order directing the sale of the marital residence. Such relief can only be obtained after trial.
If a party decides to violate the pendente lite order, the proper application is contempt. Shammah v. Shammah, 22 Misc.3d 822 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2008).
Usually, a pendente lite motion sets up the parties’ positions with respect to critical issues in their divorce case. If a lawyer is successful in obtaining the relief sought, his/her client’s position going forward will better and the client’s negotiating posture may improve significantly. Most divorce attorneys recognize this and are careful in making pendente lite motions.
Tags: attorney, attorneys fees, child support, county, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, lawyer, Livingston, maintenance, marital property, Monroe, New York family law, Ontario, order, Orleans, pendente lite, rochester, Supreme Court, temporary, visitation, Wayne
Posted in attorneys fees, child support, court orders, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, maintenance, pre-nuptial agreement, Supreme Court, visitation | No Comments »
Sunday, May 31st, 2009
I have previously written how the bankruptcy courts deal with attempted discharge of the so-called domestic support obligations. However, that post focused primarily on discharge of obligation that arose as a result of divorce proceedings and child support. Occasionally, I see an attempt to discharge an obligation arising out of Family Court proceedings, specifically, attorneys fees.
While it is clear that the child support or spousal support obligations are not dischargeable in bankruptcy as domestic support obligations, the question of attorneys fees granted in a child support or other proceeding in Family Court was less clear cut until Ross v. Sperow, 57 A.D.3d 1255 (3rd Dept. 2008), where the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the award of counsel fees by the Family Court was, in part, “in the nature of support” and, therefore, excepted from discharge in bankruptcy.
In Ross, the mother filed a petition for violation of a prior order of custody and visitation in 2005. In response, multiple cross petitions were filed by the father alleging violations by the mother and seeking modification of custody. In an August 2006 order resolving the parties’ petitions, Family Court sustained the mother’s motion for counsel fees and ordered that the father pay $ 5,000 of her counsel fees. The father subsequently filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and, in Schedule F of his petition, he listed the award of counsel fees as an unsecured debt. The father was discharged by order of the Bankruptcy Court in January 2007 and, shortly thereafter, the mother commenced the present proceeding in Family Court for the violation of a court order based upon the father’s failure to pay the counsel fees. Contending that the debt had been discharged in bankruptcy, the father moved to dismiss the petition. Family Court, among other things, concluded that the counsel fees awarded in its prior order were a nondischargeable domestic support obligation, denied the father’s motion and granted the mother’s petition in part, finding the father to be in violation of a prior order.
The Appellate Division noted that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of the dischargeablity of a particular debt following the discharge of the debtor in bankruptcy. It reviewed the father’s contention that the counsel fees, although awarded in the context of a Family Court proceeding regarding custody and visitation, were not “in the nature of support” for the parties’ children. The Court held that since the mother’s initial petition commencing the proceeding clearly raised issues of financial need and hardship and her motion for counsel fees, which was sustained by Family Court in the August 2006 order, proposed consideration of her circumstances as one basis for an award of counsel fees. The Court held that the term “in the nature of support” is to be given a broad interpretation in the context of the discharge of debt obligations in bankruptcy and agreed with Family Court’s determination that the award of counsel fees in its prior order was, in part, “in the nature of support” and, therefore, excepted from discharge in bankruptcy.
The real issue in this case is whether the custody petition really was in the nature of support. The mother’s lawyer was able to persuade the both the Family Court and the Appellate Division that it was. While the Appellate Division relied on the award of attorneys’ fees and the relevant standard under the Family Court Act, an argument can be made that the Court should have looked to the underlying proceeding only and that proceeding dealt exclusively with custody issues. One of the factors in any award of attorneys’ fees is ability to pay, so that can make an award of attorneys fees in any proceeding in Family Court to be in the nature of support.
Tags: attorney, attorneys fees, Bankruptcy, custody, cutody, discharge, domestic support obligation, Family Court Act, Family Law, lawyer, Livingston, Monroe, nature of support, new york, New York family law, Ontario, order, Orleans, rochester, visitation, Wayne
Posted in attorneys fees, Bankruptcy, child support, court orders, custody, Family Court, Family Law, federal law, New York Law, visitation | No Comments »
Saturday, May 2nd, 2009
I occasionally see cases involving separated siblings. In those situations, the parents, or the guardians of the children should be aware the siblings, or half-siblings have an independent right of visitation with each other. The Family Court has the same jurisdiction as the Supreme Court to determine visitation of minors, including visitation between siblings. Family Court Act §651, Domestic Relations Law §71. DRL §71 provides that “where circumstances show that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene, a brother or sister or a person on behalf of a child, whether by half or a whole blood, may apply to the family court [for visitation rights] as the best interest of the child may require.” Thus, in cases involving sibling visitation, like grandparent visitation, the court must first determine whether equitable considerations grant a party standing to bring a petition and then, if so, whether it is in the best interests of the children to award such visitation. E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150 (2007). The court in such a case is charged with determining what is in the best interests of all the children involved. State ex rel. Noonan v. Noonan, 145 Misc.2d 638 (Sup. Ct. 1989). The importance of sibling relationships has long been recognized by the courts of this state. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1989). This is manifested not only in preferring arrangements which allow siblings to live together, but also in ensuring that half-siblings have adequate contact with each other. Olivier A. v. Christina A., 9 Misc 3d 1104 [A] (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2005). The State’s recognition of the importance of siblings maintaining contact with each other is also manifested in Family Court Act §1027-a, which provides that foster care placement of a child with his or her siblings or half-siblings is presumptively in the child’s best interests. See also 18 NYCRR §431.10, which provides that a social services district must make diligent efforts to place siblings or half-siblings in foster care with each other unless such placement is determined to be detrimental to their best interests.
In a recent case, Isabel R. v. Meghan Mc., 23 Misc.3d 1102(A) (Fam. Ct. Dutchess Co. 2009), the court had to decide whether the half-siblings who were living in separate households after their parents’ breakup, were entitled to visitation with each other. The court found that the evidence demonstrated that the children did indeed have a relationship until that relationship was unilaterally terminated by the mother after she and the children’s father split up. While the mother argued that she has an absolute and unfettered right to determine whether sibling visitation should take place and that any direction by the court for sibling visitation would violate her constitutional rights. Relying on E.S. v. P.D., supra, the court held that mother’s constitutional argument was meritless and proceeded to decide whether visitation would be in the children’s best interests. In considering the children’s best interests, the court has considered, among other factors, their prior relationship, the reason visitation was stopped, the reasons given and basis for the respondent’s decision to deny visitation at the present time, the views of the attorneys for the children, the future benefit to the children and the content of the Court’s in camera interviews. The children wished to see each other and expressed no negative feelings about doing so; the children have fond memories of times they spent together and activities they did together. The court held that under those circumstances, visitation would be in the children’s best interests.
Tags: attorney, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Court Act, Family Law, lawyer, Livingston, modification, Monroe, new york, Ontario, order, right, rochester, separated, siblings, Supreme Court, visitation, Wayne
Posted in best interests of the child, court orders, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, visitation | No Comments »
Sunday, April 26th, 2009
I have previously written that a child support obligation can be suspended or terminated in situations where the court makes a finding that the child has deliberately severed his/her relationship with a parent, thereby abandoning that parent. However, in order for a court to make a finding of abandonment, the child must be of employable age.
Even if the child is not of employable age, the non-custodial parent’s child support obligation can be suspended or terminated, if the breakdown in the parent-child relationship came as a result of the actions of the custodial parent.
In Ledgin v. Ledgin, 36 A.D.3d 669 (2nd Dept. 2007), the Appellate Division held that interference with visitation rights can be the basis for the cancellation of arrears of maintenance and the prospective suspension of both maintenance and child support. However, such relief is warranted only where the custodial parent’s actions rise to the level of “deliberate frustration” or “active interference” with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights.
In Frances W. v Steven M., 15 Misc.3d 839 (Fam. Ct. Queens Co. 2007), the court held that petitioner was not entitled to child support where she intentionally aided her sister in brainwashing the child, who is almost 20 years old, into falsely believing that the father had sexually abused her when she was an infant, and otherwise poisoned the child’s relationship with respondent from the time she was four years old. The court stated that since petitioner was an active participant in destroying her niece’s relationship with the father, “she was precluded from obtaining child support from respondent as a matter of fundamental fairness.”
In S.M.B. v D.R.B, 17 Misc.3d 1132(A) (Fam. Ct. Onondaga Co. 2007), petitioner father sought vacatur of order of support contained in parties’ divorce judgment, which incorporated their opt-out agreement. Father began his action after the mother engaged in pattern of active interference and deliberate frustration of child’s relationship with father. Mother was very angry that father paid no more child support than what’s been ordered by court. Mother has withheld father’s access to child since she moved to Florida and remarried. The court found that mother’s acts of alienation were not isolated incidents but a continuing pattern. The court further found that the child now shows no interest in having relationship with father because of mother’s unfortunate endeavors. Father’s support obligation vacated since father met his burden of establishing that mother unjustifiably frustrated his right to reasonable access.
If the child is not of employable age, and the custodial parent did not interfere with the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child, the non-custodial parent’s obligation to pay child support will not be terminated by the court. Foster v. Daigle, 25 A.D.3d 1002 (3rd Dept. 2006).
Since most of these cases are tried on the issue of parental interference, it is important that each such case, before it is brought, is carefully screened by an experienced family law lawyer. Because parental interference cases require a significant level of proof, it is important that a petitioner is represented by an attorney familiar with such cases.
Tags: attorney, change in circumstances, child support, child support guidelines, Child Support Standards Act, county, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Court Act, Family Law, interference, lawyer, modification, Monroe, new york, New York family law, New York Law, Ontario, parental interference, rochester, Supreme Court, suspension, termination, visitation, Wayne
Posted in child support, child support enforcement, Child Support Standards Act, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Failure to Pay Child Support, Family Court, Family Law, modification, New York Law, visitation | No Comments »
Monday, February 9th, 2009
On January 15, 2009, another amendment to Domestic Relations Law §240 became effective. The amendment prohibits courts from signing custody orders before they check the following registries: the domestic violence registry, the Family Court “Universal Case Management System” (for child protective decisions and orders), and sex offender registry. The court is required to notify the attorneys, self-represented parties and attorneys for children of the results of the search. This notification can be made in writing or orally, on the record, especially with with respect to the sex offender registry, since the search of that registry will not generate a report that can be shared with the parties.
As a result of the amendment, the judgments of divorce, permanent custody orders and any temporary orders involving petitions for custody or visitation, must include the language stating that required databases were reviewed and what information , if any, from the databases was relied upon by the court in issuing the order.
The above is likely to place an additional burden on the courts, litigants and attorneys.
Tags: attorney, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Law, lawyer, new york, New York family law, rochester, Supreme Court
Posted in attorney for the child, best interests of the child, court orders, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Law, modification, New York Law, Order of Protection, Supreme Court, visitation | No Comments »
Monday, January 26th, 2009
Sometime ago, I became certified as an Attorney for the Child, formerly known as a Law Guardian. Since that time I represented children, primarily in Family Court, in various custody and visitation proceedings, as well as PINS (person in need of supervision) and juvenile delinquency cases.
One issue that commonly arises is that I am asked, typically by the parties, what my report to the court is going to be. I usually respond that I do not have a report to deliver, and that the reason I was appointed is to act as an advocate for the parties’ child or children. With that in mind, here are some of the basics related to what the attorney for the child does.
The Attorney for the Child is usually appointed by the court in custody and visitation disputes. He/she is there to represent the child’s interests. The person chosen to act as the Attorney for the Child is usually a lawyer who is experienced in custody matters.
Normally, the Attorney for the Child speaks with the child or children and may also speak to either or both of the parents. The Attorney may also speak with school personnel, a child’s therapist, the forensic examiner appointed in the case, or anyone else the Attorney considers appropriate to obtaining relevant and necessary information to enable him/her to state the child’s position to the Court on behalf of the child. If a child is too young to verbalize his/her thoughts, the Attorney for the Child may substitute his judgment and argue the position deemed to be in his client’s best interests.
At a hearing or during a trial, the Attorney for the Child has the right to call witnesses and to cross-examine on behalf of the child. The Law Guardian’s role is to assure that the Court hears an unbiased view of what is in the child’s best interest, a view not colored by either parent promoting his or her own agenda.
The Attorney for the Child will frequently act as a buffer between two hostile parents in an attempt to obtain a resolution that is in the child’s best interest. The most common criticism if that the Attorney for the Child frequently appears to aligns him/herself with one parent, losing objectivity and effectively becoming a second advocate for one parent.
A common mistake that parents make in custody disputes is to forget that the Attorney for the Child is the child’s attorney and not their attorney. Your own attorney will keep your communications with him/her confidential and will reveal only what is in your best interests. Your own lawyer will work with you to present your arguments in the best light. That clearly is not the same as the Attorney for the Child’s role.
In discussions with the Attorney for the Child, parents need to give reasons they believe their child’s best interests are served by that parent serving as the primary custodian or that the child will be well served by requested changes in visitation. They need to describe their positive contributions to raising the child.
On November 8, 2008, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has issued Guidelines for Attorneys for the Children that are applicable to both Supreme and Family Court proceedings. These guidelines must be followed by all attorneys for the children practicing in the judicial districts included in the Fourth Department. In my opinion, the guidelines represent a clear and cogent set of rules and all attorneys handling family law matters should have at least a passing familiarity with the guidelines as well.
Tags: attorney for the child, best interests, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Law, law guardian, New York family law, Supreme Court
Posted in attorney for the child, best interests of the child, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Law, New York Law, Supreme Court, visitation | 1 Comment »
Monday, January 26th, 2009
I am asked occasionally whether a parent’s child support obligation can be terminated on the grounds that the child stopped all contact with the parent in order to avoid parental control. My usual response is that it can be done, but the parent must establish either abandonment or constructive emancipation, and faces a substantial burden of proof.
The Family Court Act §413 mandates that parents support their children until they reach the age of 21. The courts in New York have held that a child’s right to support and the parent’s right to custody and services are reciprocal, and that a parent may impose reasonable regulations. Generally, where a minor of employable age and in full possession of her faculties, voluntarily and without cause, abandons the parent’s home, against the will of the parent and for the purpose of avoiding parental control, the child forfeits his/her right to demand support. Roe v. Doe, 29 N.Y.2d 188 (1971); Matter of Ontario County Department of Social Services (Christopher L.) v. Gail K., 269 A.D.2d 847 (4th Dept. 2000), leave denied, 95 N.Y.2d 760 (2000).
While the duty to support is a continuing one, the child’s right to support and the parent’s right to custody and services are reciprocal. Roe v. Doe, 29 N.Y.2d 188 (1971). Thus, a parent, in return for maintenance and support, may establish and impose reasonable regulations for his/her child. In Roe v. Doe, supra, the Court of Appeals explained:
Accordingly, though the question is novel in this State, it has been held, in circumstances such as here, that where by no fault on the parent’s part, a child “voluntarily abandons the parent’s home for the purpose of seeking its fortune in the world or to avoid parental discipline and restraint [the child] forfeits the claim to support” . . . To hold otherwise would allow, at least in the case before us, a minor of employable age to deliberately flout the legitimate mandates of her father while requiring that the latter support her in her decision to place herself beyond his effective control.
The doctrine of constructive emancipation is applicable to the non-custodial parent where the child unreasonably refuses all contact and visitation. Matter of Commissioner of Social Services (Jones) v. Jones-Gamble, 227 A.D.2d 618 (2nd Dept. 1996). In that case, the court held that the evidence clearly established that the child wanted no relationship with her father. Despite the father’s prior support payments, there was essentially no parent-child relationship between them. The appellate court held that, to require the father to provide reimbursement for the support of a daughter who had renounced and abandoned him would have clearly resulted in an injustice under the facts of that case.
In the Fourth Department case, Perez v. Perez, 239 A.D.2d 868 (4th Dept. 1997), appeal dismissed, 91 N.Y.2d 956 (1998), the record established that the parties’ 18 year old daughter had refused to visit with the father or to have any relationship with him. That child was found to be a minor of employable age and in full possession of her faculties, who had voluntarily refused to have a relationship with plaintiff. The child thereby forfeited her right to support from her father. Accordingly, the Fourth Department rejected the mother’s contention that the lower court erred in modifying the parties’ divorce decree by suspending father’s obligation to pay child support for the parties’ child until further order of the court.
Children of employable age and in full possession of their faculties who voluntarily and without cause abandon their home, against the will of their parents and for the purpose of avoiding parental control, forfeit their right to demand support, even if they are not financially self-sufficient. Guevara v. Ubillus, 47 A.D.3d 715 (2nd Dept. 2008). In that case, petition for child support was denied where the petitioner, without good cause, abandoned the mother’s home on her 18th birthday in order to avoid parental control and to gain independence from her mother’s restrictive household rules; the petitioner was found to have abandoned her mother’s home against the mother’s will and without cause.
In Rubino v. Morgan, 224 A.D.2d 903 (3d Dept. 1996), the Appellate Division held that the lower correct properly terminated the father’s support obligation on the grounds that his daughter’s refusal to visit with him and the child’s unprovoked rejection of him constituted abandonment. The Third Department noted that at the time of the hearing, the daughter was 17 years old, and she had refused to visit with the father since she was 14 years old. Even after the daughter refused to visit with her father, he continued for years to send letters and cards to her. The letters were never answered. He also attempted to talk with the child, without success. His actions and requests were not arbitrary, and there was no evidence of malfeasance, misconduct or neglect. The Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s findings that the daughter chose to permanently breach her relationship with the father, notwithstanding her generalized claim of “emotional abuse”, and that the father did not contribute significantly to his daughter’s decision to distance herself from him.
Furthermore, where it can be established by the non-custodial parent that the custodial parent has unjustifiably frustrated the non-custodial parent’s right of reasonable access, child support payments may be suspended. Usack v. Usack, 17 A.D.3d 736 (3d Dept. 2005). In that case, the father had encouraged the children’s unbridled enmity toward, and total exclusion of, their mother through a course of conduct calculated to inflict the most grievous emotional injury upon her. The Appellate Division held that mother’s child support obligation should have been suspended due to the father’s deliberate actions in alienating the parties’ children from her.
Tags: abandonment, child support, child support guidelines, Child Support Standards Act, constructive emancipation, emancipation, Family Law, new york, Supreme Court
Posted in child support, child support enforcement, Child Support Standards Act, Domestic Relations Law, emancipation, Failure to Pay Child Support, Family Court, Family Law, modification, New York Law, Supreme Court, visitation | 1 Comment »
Monday, January 5th, 2009
I am often asked whether there is a right to assigned counsel in divorce and custody cases that are either brought or are pending in the Supreme Court. While assignment of counsel to those who cannot afford it is a common place occurrence in the Family Court, until fairly recently, there was no right to assigned counsel in the Supreme Court. However, the New York Legislature recognized that litigants in custody and visitation cases brought in the Supreme Court should have the same right to the assignment of free counsel as litigants in custody and visitation cases brought in the Family court. Thus, Judiciary Law §35 has been amended to require justices in the Supreme Court to assign counsel in such cases. The Supreme Court justices are now required to notify parties of the right to counsel, as well as the right to an adjournment to obtain counsel, and to the right to the appointment of free counsel, if they can not afford to retain an attorney. In divorce cases, the right to assigned counsel exists only where custody or visitation are at issue. Therefore, if you are a defendant in a divorce action, and the custody or visitation is at issue, you can have a court appointed attorney represent you if you cannot hire your own counsel.
Tags: assignment, counsel, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, fvisitation, New York family law, Supreme Court
Posted in custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Law, New York Law, procedure, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, visitation | No Comments »
Sunday, December 21st, 2008
In New York, grandparents have a right to seek assistance of the court to obtain visitation with their grandchildren. That right is included in both the Domestic Relations Law and the Family Court Act. Section 72(1) of the Domestic Relations Law states that
“[w]here either or both of the parents of a minor child, residing within this state, is, or are deceased, or where circumstances show that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene, a grandparent may apply to [supreme or family court] and . . . the court, by order after due notice to the parent or any other person or party having the care, custody, and control of such child, to be given in such manner as the court shall prescribe, may make such directions as the best interest of the child may require, for visitation rights for such grandparent or grandparents in respect to such child.”
Section 72(1) “does not create an absolute or automatic right of visitation. Instead, the statute provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to acquire standing to seek visitation with a minor grandchild”. Wilson v. McGlinchey, 2 N.Y.3d 375, 380 (2004). When grandparents seek visitation under §72(1), the court must undertake a two-part inquiry. “First, [the court] must find standing based on death or equitable circumstances”; and “[i]f [the court] concludes that the grandparents have established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the best interest of the grandchild”. Emanuel S. v. Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d 178, 181 (1991).
Since 1976, visitation may be awarded to grandparents in matrimonial actions. The 1976 amendment added the following to DRL §240: “Such direction [of a court in a matrimonial action] may provide for reasonable visitation rights to the maternal or paternal grandparents of any child of the parties.” In New York, the statute provides that grandparents may obtain visitation rights even though their child is not deceased, and the nuclear family is intact.
Last year, the Court of Appeals in E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150 (2007), unanimously rejected a constitutional challenge to New York’s grandparent visitation law. In upholding the New York Law which permits grandparents, under certain circumstances, to seek visitation with their grandchildren, the Court distinguished the New York law from the overly broad Washington law struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
The statute invalidated in Troxel permitted “‘[a]ny person’ to petition for visitation rights ‘at any time,’ and authorize[d] that court to grant such visitation rights whenever ‘visitation may serve the best interest of the child’” (Troxel, 530 U.S. at 60 [quoting Wash Rev Code § 26.10.160(3) (1994)]). The Washington statute explicitly applied a presumption in favor of grandparent visitation, placing on the parent “the burden of disproving that visitation would be in the best interest” of her children.
The New York Statute, on the other hand, is based upon the presumption that the parent’s wishes represent the best interests of the children. The Court noted that:
. . . courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent’s wishes. The presumption that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interests is a strong one. And while, as we made clear in Wilson, the problems created by parent-grandparent antagonism cannot be ignored, an acrimonious relationship is generally not sufficient cause to deny visitation. “It is almost too obvious to state that, in cases where grandparents must use legal procedures to obtain visitation rights, some degree of animosity exists between them and the party having custody of the child or children. Were it otherwise, visitation could be achieved by agreement” (Lo Presti v. Lo Presti, 40 N.Y.2d 522, 526 (1976)).
While this presumption creates a significant burden for the grandparent, the grandmother in this case was able to overcome it, because from the time the child was almost four until he was seven, grandmother was the primary caretaker. The court then considered all of the many circumstances bearing upon whether it was in the child’s best interest for his relationship with grandmother to continue, such as whether the father’s objections to grandmother’s access to the child were reasonable, her caregiving skills and attitude toward father, the law guardian’s assessment and the child’s desires, before granting visitation.
Tags: custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, equitable distribution, Family Court, Family Law, grandparents, new york, New York Law, rochester, Supreme Court, visitation
Posted in best interests of the child, custody, divorce, Domestic Relations Law, Family Court, Family Law, grandparents, New York Law, visitation | 1 Comment »
