Upstate New York Family Lawyer Blog

#379 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 31, 2012, Part 4 of 6

Fri, 03 May 2013 23:45:00 -0500

The first case illustrates the rarely seen doctrine of equitable estoppel. However, when this doctrine appears, it always seems to be in the context of paternity, at least in family court proceedings. The crux of this doctrine, in family law, is this: what is the child's perspective?

The second case involves another TPR petition.

#378 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 31, 2012, Part 3 of 6

Fri, 03 May 2013 10:00:00 -0500

The first case is the classic application of Tropea to the fact pattern. Mom wants to relocate. Dad opposes the relocation. Mom has a number of factors she needs to prove in order to be able to relocate.

The second case? Can you say SSL §384-b? Sure, I knew ya could. And, once again, the results speak for themselves.

#377 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 31, 2012, Part 2 of 6

Fri, 03 May 2013 08:30:00 -0500

We'll call this one Bad Father, Good Father.

The first case illustrates the chaos some children have to deal with when one or both of their parents act like children themselves. It also shows that if a change in circumstances is present, then even orders that are only days old can be modified.

The second case is yet another warning to parents to get along for the sake of their children - or else. The "or else" usually means the end of joint legal custody. If you can't play nice with one another, then you will force the court to choose the better parent.

#376 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 31, 2012, Part 1 of 6

Wed, 01 May 2013 21:00:00 -0500

The first case asks more questions than it answers. It also illustrates the dangers of an inartfully drafted stipulation of settlement that makes assumptions about the law.

The second case concerns SSL §384-b again. While such appeals are almost always affirmed, I follow these specific cases because, once in a great while, they are reversed on appeal. However, this case is not one of them.

#375 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 24, 2012, Part 1 of 1

Wed, 01 May 2013 09:00:00 -0500

Sometimes, things are not always as they appear. And, sometimes, decisions are not as clear as they really need to be. And, sometimes, it makes one wonder what the hell is really going on.

#374 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 17, 2012, Part 2 of 2

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:00:00 -0500

The first case illustrates what occurs in an FCA Article 10 case when a non-final order is appealed and then the underlying case is resolved. It also shows the importance of appealing dispositive orders.

The second case looks like an appeal that should have resulted in the filing of an Anders Brief.

#373 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 17, 2012, Part 1 of 2

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:00:00 -0500

The first case involves a very stupid person who rolled the dice and lost. Big time.

The second case involves a second very stupid person. Perhaps it's the mere nature of being a criminal that makes people stupid.

#372 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 10, 2012, Part 4 of 4

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:00:00 -0500

The first case is concerns how joint legal custody can easily become sole legal custody when one parent decides that they are not going to be cooperative with the other parent.

The second case concerns a likely pedophile who fancied himself to be a computer nerd - but wasn't smart enough to keep from getting caught.

#371 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 10, 2012, Part 3 of 4

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:00:00 -0500

The first case involves ... another sex offender. Jesus, they're everywhere! I think you know the drill: affirmed.

The second case involves ... yet more sexual abuse of children. I guess I include these cases if only because I simply cannot understand how a human being can find sexual gratification in a child. The thought is so utterly repugnant to me that these specimens of flawed humanity hold some sick sort of bizarre fascination for me. I just can't understand how such people can think such horrific thoughts and then put such thoughts into action.

#370 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 10, 2012, Part 2 of 4

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:00:00 -0500

The first case is one concerning a sex offender appealing his risk assessment level. Silly sex offender.

The second case illustrates that mootness of an appeal trumps the need for the filing of an Anders Brief.

#369 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 10, 2012, Part 1 of 4

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:00:00 -0500

The first case is short and sweet. Here's an idea: if you don't want to be found in willful violation of an order of child support, then it is probably best not to admit to being in arrears on the record. D'oh!

The second case involves our old friend Harmless Error.

#368 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 3, 2012, Part 2 of 2

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:00:00 -0500

The first case illustrates the confluence of money, estrangement, and counsel fees in family court.

The second case brings us back, once again, to the equitable distribution of real property.

#367 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for May 3, 2012, Part 1 of 2

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:00:00 -0500

And now, for something completely different! Cue the "Monty Python" music.

The first case concerns the amazingly dangerous feat of DWI on a motorcycle. Yeah.

The second case concerns a mother beating up her children - and then pointing the finger at the babysitter. Stay classy, mom!

#366 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for April 26, 2012, Part 8 of 8

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:00:00 -0500

Here are two relocation cases, both involving mothers who ultimately lose custody.

The first case gives a good overview of the general concept of "the totality of the circumstances" when analyzing a custody case, especially concerning relocation cases.

The second case is an object lesson in the pitfalls of parental alienation.

#365 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for April 26, 2012, Part 7 of 8

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:00:00 -0500

The first case is a standard, garden variety FCA Article 6 case - but with a twist with regard to what it does not state.

The second case is a judicial spanking, handed down by the Third Department. What is a judicial spanking? It's when the Third Department remits the matter back to the trial court, but pointedly states that it is for further proceedings "before a different judge". Ouch. Those four words speak volumes.