New York Family Law Blog

Court of Appeals Holds Attorney for Child May Appeal Custody Orders on Child’s Behalf. Matter of Abdoch v. Abdoch, 2026 NY Slip Op 03219 (N.Y. 2026)

Stephen Bilkis — Sun, 31 May 2026 02:38:17 +0000

In New York custody cases, courts often appoint an Attorney for the Child (AFC) to represent the child’s interests and advocate for the child’s wishes. While an AFC’s role in Family Court proceedings is well established, New York courts had disagreed about whether an AFC could independently appeal a custody decision when neither parent chose to appeal.

Background Facts

David and Fonda Abdoch were the parents of four children. They previously entered into a custody arrangement under which the children primarily resided with their mother.

Child’s Fourth Amendment Claims Reinstated After Emergency Removal From Father’s Custody. K.W. v. The City of New York, No. 24-3042-cv (2d Cir. 2026)

Stephen Bilkis — Sat, 30 May 2026 02:35:29 +0000

Parents generally have a constitutional right to the care and custody of their children. At the same time, child welfare agencies have a responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect. When government officials remove a child from a parent’s custody without a court order, courts must determine whether the removal was justified by an emergency or whether it violated constitutional protections. In K.W. v. The City of New York, No. 24-3042-cv (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered claims arising from the removal of a newborn child from his father’s custody shortly after birth. The court concluded that several constitutional claims brought on behalf of the child should proceed.

Background Facts

K.A. was born in March 2017 at Bronx Lebanon Hospital in New York City. According to the complaint, he lived with his father, K.W., during the first days of his life.

Man Held Responsible for Child Support Despite DNA Evidence Excluding Paternity. Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d 320 (2006)

Stephen Bilkis — Sat, 02 May 2026 01:27:09 +0000

A child support case does not always turn on biological parentage. In some situations, New York courts will prevent a person from denying paternity even when genetic testing proves that the person is not the child’s biological father. This legal principle is known as paternity by estoppel. The doctrine focuses on the best interests of the child rather than the biological relationship between the parties.

Background Facts

In January 1996, Shondel J. gave birth to a daughter in Guyana. She identified Mark D. as the child’s father on the birth registration documents. Mark and Shondel had been involved in a relationship and had engaged in sexual intercourse before the child’s birth.

Videos Were Not Properly Authenticated. Matter of M.S. (M.H.), 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00825 (N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026)

Stephen Bilkis — Tue, 06 Jan 2026 01:11:41 +0000

In Matter of M.S. (M.H.), the New York Court of Appeals considered whether Family Court properly admitted video evidence in an abuse proceeding under Family Court Act article 10. The case involved a mother, M.H., her daughter, M.S., and her son, G.H. Erie County alleged that M.H. abused M.S. by failing to protect her from sexual abuse by M.H.’s former live-in boyfriend, D.K., and that she derivatively abused G.H. The case turned on three videos that appeared to show D.K. engaging in sexual contact with M.S. The Court was asked to decide whether the foundation for those videos was sufficient and whether they should have been received into evidence.

Background Facts

In February 2022, Erie County filed article 10 petitions against M.H. and D.K., alleging abuse of M.S. and G.H. The petitions were based on three videos bearing 2019 timestamps. In those videos, D.K. appeared to be engaged in sexual contact with M.S. on a couch in the family living room. M.S. was 14 at the time shown in the timestamps. In one video, M.H. appeared to leave the room before the conduct shown later in the recording.

Custody Modification Awarding Father Primary Physical Custody. Matter of Andrea II. v. Joseph HH., 2022 NY Slip Op 01492

Stephen Bilkis — Wed, 05 Nov 2025 19:22:05 +0000

The case of Matter of Andrea II. v. Joseph HH. involved two custody modification petitions filed by both parents of a child born in 2014. The matter required the court to decide whether there had been a change in circumstances since a prior custody order, and if so, what custodial arrangement would serve the child’s best interests. Both parents had a history of substance abuse, and the court evaluated each parent’s current circumstances, their ability to provide stability, and the child’s needs before deciding primary physical custody.

Background Facts
In June 2018, the parties entered a consent order granting joint legal custody to both parents. The child’s paternal grandparents had primary physical custody. The mother had supervised parenting time every other week, supervised by the maternal grandmother. The father’s parenting time was supervised by the paternal grandfather as agreed between them.

In October 2019, the mother sought to modify the order to grant her sole custody with supervised visitation to the father. In February 2020, the father filed a petition seeking full custody, citing his sobriety and stable home. The mother amended her petition, alleging changes in circumstances, including the loss of her alternate week visitation after the child began school in Binghamton near the paternal grandparents’ home.

Relocation Condition Removed from Custody Award. Matter of Wright v. Burke, 2024 NY Slip Op 01815

Stephen Bilkis — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:51:05 +0000

In 2021, both Alex Wright and Sanchel Burke filed custody petitions in the Family Court, Kings County. The case involved their child, who had moved with the mother from Brooklyn to Binghamton. The father sought sole legal and physical custody, and the mother also sought sole legal and physical custody. A key question was whether the court could require the mother to move back to New York City as a condition of keeping custody. The court was also tasked with setting a parental access schedule for the father that took into account the child’s best interests.

Background Facts
The parties never married and are the parents of one child. The father lived in Brooklyn, while the mother and child moved to Binghamton in 2021. Following that move, both parents filed petitions for sole legal and physical custody.

In March 2023, after a hearing, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody. However, the order included two conditions: that the mother relocate with the child back to New York City and that the child be enrolled in a school in Brooklyn within a 20-minute commute from the father’s residence. The court stated that if the mother did not meet these conditions, custody would be transferred to the father.

Relocation Request in Custody Case. Matter of Emily F. v. Victor P., 2024 NY Slip Op 24189

Stephen Bilkis — Wed, 03 Sep 2025 17:39:04 +0000

In February 2022, Emily F. filed a petition in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, seeking to modify a 2017 final order of custody and visitation. She requested permission to relocate her child from New York to North Carolina over the objection of the father, Victor P. The case came before the court on remittal from the Appellate Division for a new fact-finding hearing. The court considered testimony, documentary evidence, and the relocation standard in New York, which requires the moving parent to show that the relocation is in the child’s best interests.

Background Facts
Emily F. and Victor P. were previously married and lived in the Bronx between 2013 and 2016. They separated in 2016 after incidents of domestic violence. The 2017 custody order, issued on consent, gave the mother sole legal and physical custody and provided the father with parenting time. The mother lost her job at New York University in 2020 due to budget cuts and searched extensively for employment in New York, applying for over 65 positions. When she was unable to find work, she began looking in North Carolina, where she had family. In February 2022, she received an offer from Duke University and relocated with the child in June 2022.

Since the move, the child has been living in a gated community, performing well in school, participating in tutoring and athletic activities, and maintaining friendships. The father’s parenting time has been inconsistent, with missed opportunities during several school breaks and holidays. The mother offered to pay travel costs and proposed a schedule that included substantial time in New York and North Carolina. The child expressed a preference to remain in North Carolina while continuing to spend time with the father. The father did not testify or present evidence during the hearing.

Father Granted Relocation to South Carolina. Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05348

Stephen Bilkis — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 17:30:41 +0000

In Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a Family Court decision denying a father’s request to relocate with his children from New York to South Carolina. The case examined the legal standard for relocation, the factors courts must weigh when a custodial parent seeks to move, and how evidence on financial stability, educational needs, and family support can influence the court’s determination. It also addressed the impact of relocation on the noncustodial parent’s access to the children and how parenting schedules can be adjusted to preserve relationships.

Background Facts
The parents, who were never married, had two children, born in 2012 and 2016. In April 2017, they entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement granting the father sole legal and residential custody. The mother was given supervised parental access.

The father and children lived in a house in New York owned by the father’s grandmother. In November 2021, the father filed a petition to modify the 2017 stipulation to allow him to relocate with the children to South Carolina. He testified that he could no longer continue renting his grandmother’s house. The mother contributed $25 per month in child support for both children.

Failure to Provide Notice Before Withdrawing Counsel Requires Reversal. Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00215

Stephen Bilkis — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:52:53 +0000

In Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), the Appellate Division, Third Department, considered whether the Family Court of Schenectady County erred in proceeding with a neglect fact-finding hearing without the mother or her attorney present. The case involved important questions about a parent’s right to counsel in Family Court Act article 10 neglect proceedings, and the procedures that must be followed when assigned counsel seeks to withdraw. The decision also addressed how the failure to give proper notice of withdrawal can affect the validity of a neglect finding.

Background Facts

The mother and father were unmarried parents of four children born between 2003 and 2013. In July 2020, the Schenectady County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a report concerning the children. The children were removed from the parents’ care and placed in DSS custody. DSS filed separate neglect petitions against each parent under Family Court Act article 10.

Mother’s Violation Petition Denied; Father’s Relocation to Florida Granted. Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51090(U)

Stephen Bilkis — Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:52:43 +0000

In Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., the Family Court of Tompkins County addressed two petitions involving custody and parenting time for a child born in 2020. The mother filed a violation petition alleging that the father withheld court-ordered supervised parenting time. The father filed a relocation petition seeking to move with the child to Florida. This case involved application of the legal standard for relocation under Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), which requires the moving parent to show that relocation is in the child’s best interests. It also highlights the consequences for withholding court-ordered supervised parenting time, which can include findings of contempt, fines, makeup time, and possible changes to custody.

Background Facts

In September 2022, the parents consented to an order granting the father sole custody and placement of the child, with supervised parenting time for the mother. Parenting time was to be arranged through the parties’ attorneys.