Family Court in New York by Ruth Rivera: Statutes & Case Law

This is a New York Court of Appeals case dealing with the custody of siblings. The issue is whether custody of the youngest child of the parties herein should be changed, along with that of her two older sisters, from her mother to her father. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and reinstated the Supreme Court judgment, holding, in an opinion by Judge Jasen, that the trial court properly found that under the totality of the circumstances, Laura's best interests required changing custody of the child from her mother to her father.

This case establishes what is in the "best interest" of the child. It is a phrase that gets referred to regularly.

This case involved children being placed into the Department of Social Services for neglect. The Department of Social Services wanted to terminate the parent's custodial rights. The parents moved to dismiss. The court held that "(1) within meaning of statute permitting termination of parental rights on grounds of permanent neglect for parents' “failure to plan for the future of the child,” requirement of parent to substantially plan means not only to formulate, but also to accomplish, a feasible and realistic plan to restore the child to a permanent, stable home with its parent, and as so construed, the statutory phrase in question satisfied constitutional requirement for definiteness under due process clause; (2) statute permitting termination of parental rights on grounds of permanent neglect for parents' failure to plan for future of the child did not violate parents' right of privacy, in view of fact that state's legitimate concern in preventing...."

This case is about a child that was placed in foster care. The foster parents knew it was temporary and they did not have legal custody. Yet, they siill tried to adopt the child. The court found that it was in the child's best interest to be returned to the parents because appellants conducted themselves in a manner inconsistent with the agreement and responsibility to prepare child for eventual return to natural home.

This case dealt with a mother who wanted to relocate with her child outside the New York area. The court granted the relocation because it found that the mother was not doing it out of malice nor was she trying to deny the father visitation. The mother showed that she had better financial and employment opportunities in her new location.

This court determined that it is the parent's fundamental right to determine the child's upbringing. “Questions of custody are, generally, for the Supreme Court, in its discretion, and it is rarely that any such determination by it can raise any question of law for us.”

This court in this case stated that before parental rights can be terminated, that there be a '“fair preponderance of the evidence” standard prescribed by the New York Family Court Act for the termination of parental rights denied the parents due process.' "

Supreme Court case stating that the "section of New York Family Court Act authorizing pretrial detention of accused juvenile delinquent based on finding that there was “serious risk” that juvenile “may before the return date commit an act which if committed by an adult would constitute a crime” did not violate due process clause."