Articles Posted in Child Custody

It is not unusual for parents to enter into custody agreements during divorce proceedings. These agreements are often incorporated into court orders, making them legally enforceable. However, when disputes arise, or significant changes occur, courts are called upon to interpret and enforce these agreements. A recent New York case highlights the challenges of enforcing complex parenting time arrangements and modifying custody agreements. If you are dealing with issues surrounding custody enforcement or modification, it is important to understand your options, and you should speak with an experienced New York child custody attorney.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the parties resolved their divorce through a Stipulation of Settlement dated June 21, 2023, which incorporated a Final Order of Custody on Consent. This agreement included a highly detailed joint custody schedule that was designed to evolve over time. Initially, the father was granted more parenting time, with the stipulation that nine months later, the arrangement would transition to a 50-50 custody schedule, pending input from the child’s therapist and the child’s preferences.

It is reported that disputes arose when the transition date approached. The mother sought enforcement of the agreement’s 50-50 parenting time provision, arguing that the schedule was clear and non-negotiable. She also alleged that the father impeded the process by failing to facilitate the child’s access to a therapist. The mother further moved for contempt against the father for violating the agreement and requested financial relief related to debts and child support add-ons. Continue reading

New York courts prioritize the best interests of the child in custody cases, ensuring that any custody arrangement will provide the child with a safe and stable environment. As demonstrated in a recent New York decision, doing so may sometimes require the courts to grant one parent sole custody over the other parent’s objections. If you need assistance with a custody dispute, it is in your best interest to consult with a knowledgeable New York family law attorney. 

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is alleged that the mother and father married and had a child together.

It is not uncommon for divorcing parents to enter into stipulation agreements that set forth their parental rights or for the courts to incorporate such agreements into divorce decrees, rendering them enforceable. Even if parents believe the terms of stipulations are suitable when they enter into them, circumstances can arise that necessitate a modification. Recently, a New York court explained what constitutes a significant enough change to warrant a modification in a case in which it ultimately denied the father’s request.  If you are interested in modifying the terms of your custody arrangement, it is in your best interest to meet with a New York child custody lawyer promptly.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married and had one child together before divorcing. They entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in August 2017, which the court incorporated but did not merge with their Judgment of Divorce. The Stipulation provided for joint legal custody of their child, with equal decision-making authority and a detailed parenting schedule. Initially, the father had alternating parenting schedules until the child turned five, after which his schedule was modified. The agreement included provisions for holiday and summer vacation schedules, child support, additional expenses, and life insurance requirements. The father was also required to comply with court orders regarding therapy.

It is reported that the father sought additional parenting time, claiming changes in his employment and relocation to New Jersey due to COVID-19 as significant changes in circumstances. The mother opposed the father’s request, arguing the father’s application was procedurally defective and that no sufficient change in circumstances existed to warrant modification. She also alleged that the father engaged in emotional and physical abuse against the child and provided supporting evidence. Additionally, the mother cross-moved for enforcement of the Stipulation’s provisions regarding life insurance add-on expenses, and sought counsel fees, claiming the father owed support arrears and had not complied with the therapy and life insurance requirements. Continue reading

When a couple with children decides to end their marriage, their primary concern is often determining an arrangement that best suits their children’s needs. In many cases, this will involve an agreement to live in a certain geographical area. The courts will typically adopt such an agreement if they find it to be in a child’s best interest. As demonstrated in a recent New York case, if a parent unilaterally decides to violate a geographical order or agreement and relocate a child, it may negatively impact the parent’s custody rights. If you have concerns about safeguarding your parental rights, it is advisable to speak to a New York child custody lawyer.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the mother and the father, parents of three children, entered into a separation agreement in June 2019, which was modified by an addendum in November 2019. They agreed to share joint legal custody, with the mother having primary physical custody and the father having specific parenting time. They also agreed not to move more than 50 miles from their current residence without court consent or written consent from the other parent. A final judgment of divorce in March 2020 incorporated this agreement and addendum.

Reportedly, in May 2022, the mother filed a petition seeking sole legal custody, claiming a breakdown in communication. In August 2022, the father filed a petition for modification, arguing that the mother had moved beyond the agreed 50-mile limit to enroll the children in a new school and sought primary physical custody. The trial court dismissed the mother’s petition, finding no breakdown in communication, but granted the father’s petition for the oldest child, allowing him to continue attending his former school. The younger children’s custodial arrangement remained unchanged, and the court set a parenting time schedule for all three children. The mother appealed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading

New York law demands that parents support their children financially, and in many shared custody cases, the courts will order one parent to pay the other child support, subject to the terms of a support order. The law also recognizes that circumstances can change over time and allows parties to seek modifications of support orders. The courts will only grant such requests if the moving party offers sufficient evidence demonstrating an amendment is warranted, though, as discussed in a recent New York ruling. If you have questions about child support, it is advisable to speak with a New York child support lawyer.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the mother and the father, who were divorced, shared joint custody of their minor child, born in 2004. In March 2020, the father filed a request for a modification of the support order due to termination of his employment. Subsequently, in September 2021, both parties agreed to reduce the father’s child support obligations. In May 2022, after being laid off from another job, the father sought modification of the September 2021 order, citing a “substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances.” He requested suspension of his support payments until he found new employment and that the mother be required to pay him child support. The father amended his petition in July 2022 to include a claim that a “temporary medical emergency” prevented him from working for an extended period.

Allegedly, the Support Magistrate dismissed the petitions, concluding that the father had not demonstrated sufficient efforts to obtain employment or provided competent medical evidence to prove his inability to work. The father subsequently objected to this decision, arguing that the Support Magistrate did not adequately consider his involuntary job loss, job-seeking efforts, and the impact of his injury on his ability to work. The trial court denied these objections, and the father appealed. Continue reading

When tasked with determining parental rights, the New York courts generally aim to maintain the parent-child relationship, but the health and welfare of the child is their paramount concern. As such, in some cases, they will find it to be in a child’s best interests to limit a parent’s access to a child or order the parent to undergo certain steps before they award them custody rights. In such instances, the affected parent typically cannot obtain a modification of the order absent a showing of a substantial change in circumstances, as discussed in an opinion recently issued by a New York court. If you need assistance protecting your parental rights, it is in your best interest to speak with a New York child custody attorney to determine your options.

Case Background

It is reported that the mother and the father, who had children together, divorced. The court issued a divorce judgment incorporating a settlement agreement suspending the father’s parental access to the younger child pending recommendations from a therapeutic parental access facilitator. Subsequently, the father filed numerous motions, which ultimately resulted in the issuance of two family court orders, which he appealed.

It is alleged that the first order, issued in March 2023, denied the father’s motion to vacate a prior order and enforce parental access provisions in the parties’ divorce judgment. It also granted the mother’s cross-motion to enjoin the father from filing further petitions related to custody or parental access without court permission and awarded counsel fees to the mother. The second order, issued one week later, further enjoined the father from filing petitions to modify custody or parental access without court permission. The case stemmed from a history of disputes between the parties regarding parental access, culminating in the father’s repeated attempts to modify court orders. Continue reading