Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
fork
JAMES
Petitioner-Respondent,
- against AMANDA
Respondent-Petitioner.
In August 2012, while the mother was in the Hague, New York area
visiting her parents with the children, she was notified by the father that
he was being discharged. By agreement between the parents, all three
boys (J., G. and I.) were left with the maternal grandparents, and the
mother and T. returned to Virginia to assist in packing up their belongings
for relocation. The parties agreed to move to the Hague, New York area
and, while they lived with the mother's parents, the father would seek
employment. While living in the maternal grandparents home - essentially
a one-bedroom residence - the grandfather slept on the only bed in the
house in the bedroom, the grandmother slept in a chair, the father and the
mother slept on couches, and the four children slept on the floor.
From November 2012 until mid-February 2013, the father sought
employment in the area. The parties agreed that he would look for work
on the east coast from Maine to Florida, and when he obtained
employment they would move to that location and not move again. The
mother testified that this search area was acceptable to her since it
involved only a one day's drive to her parents home in Hague, a claim that
is belied by the fact that Florida is approximately 1200 miles distant and
not a one day drive. The father not only sought employment on his own,
but he used the services of employment recruiters as well. The father had
a number of interviews throughout the northeast but was unsuccessful.
He also applied for employment at the International Paper Company Mill
in TimndRrngfl^ N P W York anri had^npJnt.RKviejgLtbre-h]jijio4^^
As the father's unemployment benefits began to run out in January,
2013, the parties discussed the father's lack of employment, that they were
running out of options, that he was not getting anywhere with obtaining
employment in this area, and that the father knew he could find work in
Texas, where he lived before his enlistment and where his parents
presently reside. The mother insisted that the father not leave for Texas
to seek employment there until after T.'s first birthday on February 17,
2013. She also encouraged him to seek employment outside of his
specialized field of training, such as by working at Walmart or McDonalds,
even though his military training qualified him for employment at a
significantly high salary level at which the family could be comfortably
Page-5-
_
Decision and Order
the children up at a hotel or motel and pay the travel expenses. The
mother refused, her excuse being that she needed to transport a co-worker
to work and that she could not afford the trip. No excuse was provided by
the mother that the trip would not be in the children's best interests.
Moreover, at that time, the father was paying the mother child support of
$100 per week, the mother admitted having take-home pay from her job of
$200-$300 per week, and she was living with her parents so she had
minimal living expenses. The mother did not deny the father's testimony
that he offered to pay her travel and lodging expenses, or that she asked
him if her co-worker (Jeff) could come too, only stating that she could not
recall one way or the other.
Once back in Texas, the father's employment was in the Houston
area and he secured an apartment in that area. He gave up that apartment
once he started paying $257.00 per week in child support to the mother
and it was clear that she would not move to Texas with the children. The
father made several efforts to convince the mother to come to Texas and
try it out for a couple of weeks, or a couple of months, or even just over the
Christmas 2013 holiday period. The mother refused to go because she did
not want to leave her family. Although the mother testified that she
believed that the father would renege on his agreement to allow her to go
back to New York if it did not work out in Texas, the Court did not find
this testimony to be credible since no evidence was provided from which
any inference could be drawn that the father would prevent the mother
from returning to New York with the children or that he had the ability to
do so. There was no evidence of any controlling or abusive behavior by the
father against the mother, other than her testimony that during his
military service he handled the finances when he was not on his ship.
Even that testimony fails to establish any controlling behavior by the
father inasmuch as the mother testified that they were experiencing
financial problems during that time and she was handling the finances
while the father was deployed.
When it became clear to the father that things did not work out
between the parents, the father commenced an action for divorce in Texas.
Upon being served with those papers, the mother commenced a custody
Page-6-
..
Decision and Order
When the mother is working, the grandmother gets the child J. on the
school bus in the morning and is responsible for being present when he is
returned later that afternoon. During holiday periods and the summer
months, she works a minimum of 40 hours per week.
The maternal grandmother not only watches the three subject
children and the mother's son J., but she also takes care of two other
female grandchildren who are 6 and 2 years of age. When the children
arrive at her home, they remove all of their clothes except their underwear
and that is how they spend their day. When inside the home, the children
watch TV or play with toys. Outside, there is a trampoline without any
netting or fencing to prevent a user from falling or being propelled off. The
grandparents have considerable property on which there is a barn and a
fenced-in pond. No evidence was submitted indicating that the children
are exposed to any type of age-appropriate educational media or
instructional activities (i.e., reading, numbers, etc.). Moreover, the mother
failed to get the children G. and I . enrolled in the local Headstart program,
and had no reasonable excuse for such failure, her excuse being that her
work prevents her from getting the children to and from the Headstart
program in Ticonderoga.
The grandmother is overwhelmed by the responsibilities of caring
for so many young, active children. Both twins are "active", "very busy"
boys. On September 3, 2014, the four year old child I . left her home
unnoticed, clothed only in his underwear, and walked down the long
driveway to a major two-lane highway and then approximately six tenths
of a mile to a local fire station. He was observed by fire department
personnel running around the parking lot at approximately 12:00 noon.
He had no shoes and was dirty. He did not know his last name. He told
the EMT who found him that he was going to get bubble gum at the store.
The Warren County Sheriff was notified, and 45 minutes to an hour later
a deputy sheriff took the child into custody and eventually returned him
to the grandmother. The response of the mother and the grandmother was
that the child was at fault, there being testimony from the investigating
child protective services worker that both of them told her that the
children knew the rules that they are not allowed to go past the woods or
B.
"An initial custody determination is controlled by the best interests
of the child, taking into consideration such factors as the parents' ability
to provide a stable home environment for the child, the child's wishes, the
parents' past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for
the child's overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster
a relationship with the other parent {see Matter of Lynch v. Gillogly, 82
A.D.3d 1529, 1530, 920 N.Y.S.2d 437 [2011]; Matter of Torkildsen v.
Torkildsen, 72 A.D.3d 1405, 1406, 900 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2010])" {Rundall v.
Rundall 86A.D.3d 700, 701,927 N.Y.S.2d 414,416 [3d Dept., 2011]). The
Court must also consider "'the effect that an award of custody to one
parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent' {Bliss
V. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 439 N.E.2d 349)" {Youngv.
Young 212 A.D.2d 114, 118, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957, 960 [2d Dept., 1995]).
Additionally, "[t]he Family Court was required to consider the parties'
support obligations and their compliance with court orders {Domestic
Relations La w240[l][a][4]) and to evaluate each party's ability to support
the child {seeEschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167,172,451 N.Y.S.2d 658,
436 N.E.2d 1260)." {Wissink v. Wissink. 301 A.D.2d 36, 40-41, 749
N.Y.S.2d 550, 553 [2d Dept., 2002]).
Since the father is seeking custody here, the effects of relocation of
the children must be considered. "Consideration of 'whether the relocation
of the child would negatively affect the fundamental right of reasonable
access of the parent left behind' clearly is essential {Matter ofMessier v.
Messier, supra, at 159, 638 N.Y.S.2d 242)" {Bodrato v. Bisgs. 274 A.D.2d
694, 696, 710 N.Y.S.2d 470, 472 [3d Dept., 2000]). "[E]ach relocation
request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all
the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis
being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of
the child. While the respective rights of the custodial and noncustodial
parents are unquestionably significant factors that must be considered
{see, Strahl v. Strahl, 66 A.D.2d 571, 414 N.Y.S.2d 184, affd 49 N.Y.2d
1036, 429 N.Y.S.2d 635, 407 N.E.2d 479, supra), it is the rights and needs
of the children that must be accorded the greatest weight, since they are
innocent victims of their parents' decision to divorce and are the least
equipped to handle the stresses of the changing family situation." (Tropea
V. Tropea. 87 N.Y.2d 727,739,642 N.Y.S.2d 575,580, 665 N.E.2d 145,150
[1996]). "[I]n all cases, the courts should be free to consider and give
appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the
determination. These factors include, but are certainly not limited to each
parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the
relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial
parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's
future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the
custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically,
emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of
preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child
through suitable visitation arrangements" (Tropea. supra., at 740, 642
N.Y.S.2d at 581-582, 665 N.E.2d at 151-152). "Additionally, the parties'
agreed-upon geographical relocation restriction must factor into a best
interest analysis [citation omitted]" {Grathwol v. Grathwol 285 A.D.2d
957,958, 727 N.Y.S.2d 825,827 [3d Dept., 2001]). "In the end, it is for the
court to determine, based on all of the proof, whether it has been
established by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation
would serve the child's best interests [footnote omitted]" (Tropea. supra.).
C.
The children here are too young for their wishes to be considered or
given any weight. In considering the ability of each party to provide a
stable home environment for the children, the Court is mindful that the
"[c]hildren need a home base." {Braiman v. Braiman. 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589,
407 N.Y.S.2d 449,451, 378 N.E.2d 1019,1021 [1978]). For these children,
that home base is the grandmother's home, not the mother's apartment for
which no evidence was presented. The father, who currently resides with
his parents, has sufficient space for the children to reside with him until
he obtains his own residence. Both parents are employed, though the
father earns significantly more than the mother. He has the financial
ability to obtain his own residence and provide a stable home for the
children.
The mother's testimony that she wanted the father's job search to be within an
area limited to one day's driving distance from Hague, New York, is belied by her
admission that she agreed that the father could look for work on east coast as far
away as Florida, which is more than a one day drive.
first while fostering a continued relationship between the child and the
noncustodial parent {Lohmiller v. Lohmiller, 140 A.D.2d 497, 498, 528
N.Y.S.2d 586 [1988])" {James JosephM. v. RosanaR. 32 A.D.3d 725, 726,
821 N.Y.S.2d 168, 170 [1^' Dept., 2006]). "[S]o jealously do the courts
guard the relationship between a noncustodial parent and his child that
any interference with it by the custodial parent has been said to be 'an act
so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a
strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial
parent.' {Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380,384-385,402 N.Y.S.2d 213
[RABIN, J.], app. dsmd. 44 N.Y.2d 851.)" {Da^hirv.Daghir 82 A.D.2d 191,
194,441 N.Y.S.2d 494, 496, affirmed56 N.Y.2d 938,453 N.Y.S.2d 609,439
N.E.2d 324 [1982]). The mother unjustifiably interfered with the
children's relationship with the father. She had no reasonable explanation
or excuse for failing and refusing to move to Texas with the father. Her
assertion that the father should have stayed and accepted employment at
McDonalds, WalMart or some similar low-wage job just because she wanted
to remain in the area is unreasonable. Both parents have an obligation to
provide the best life possible for the children, which requires that they seek
employment commensurate with their talents and abilities.
The mother further interfered with the children's relationship with
the father when she refused to bring the children to Rhode Island where
the father was receiving training for his job. Despite the father's offer to
pay the expenses for travel, lodging and meals, the mother wrongfully
refused for the reason that she felt obligated to drive a co-worker of hers
to their workplace, the Sagamore Resort in Bolton Landing, New York.
She also unreasonably refused to bring the children to Texas at Christmas
or for a couple of weeks to see if she and the children would like it there.
The mother's purported fear that she would not be allowed to return to
New York has no basis in the evidence at trial. Thus, the mother violated
the rights of the children and the father to visitation with each other. "A
noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation, and denial of that
right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that
visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child {see Matter of
Sinnott-Turner v. Kolba, 60 A.D.3d 774, 775,875 N.Y.S.2d 512; Matter of
Morash v. Minucci, 299 A.D.2d 486, 749 N.Y.S.2d 889)." {Lane v. Lane, 68
provide the parental guidance, nurturing and support that the children
need. He will insure that the children's educational needs are met. He has
the financial ability to provide for the children's needs. An award of
custody to the father will most likely to serve the best interests of the
children.
This Court recognizes that the award of custody of the children to
the father will be disruptive and possibly confusing to the children, and
will substantially change the dynamics of the children's relationship with
the mother. "That a change in custody may prove temporarily disruptive
to the children is not determinative, for all changes in custody are
disruptive" {Nehra v. Uhlar. 43 N.Y.2d 242, 249, 401 N.Y.S.2d 168, 171,
372 N.E.2d 4, 7 [1977]). There was little evidence that the children have
a close relationship with the mother, likely due to the maternal
grandmother's substantial assumption of the parenting duties. The quality
and quantity of actual time spent by the children with the mother is
unclear. However, the evidence did show that the children not only spend
most of their days with the maternal grandmother but a number of
overnights per week as well. While there will certainly be a negative effect
upon the relationship between the children and the mother by an award of
custody to the father, the effect can be minimized to the extent possible by
affording the mother the right to visit and communicate with the children
in Texas, as well as engage in significant visitation with them throughout
the year here in New York. Although there was scant evidence of the
relationship between the children and their half-sibling, any disruption of
those relationships will similarly be assuaged by the visitation
arrangements. Moreover, while the quantity of time between the mother
and the children will certainly decrease, the quality hopefully will improve
by the change.
However, for the reasons previously mentioned in this decision, it
is in the children's best interests that custody be awarded to the father.
Their lives will be enhanced by the change of custody as the father will
perform his role as parent, the children will be provided with appropriate
education and parental guidance, and they will be in a stable, nurturing
environment. As between the mother and father, the children's best
2.
3.
(2)
(2)
4.
(D)
(E)
another adult to do so, with each parent being responsible for the
children to be accompanied on the flight to their respective home
airport.
5.
The children shall have one telephone call or video chat with the
mother and their half-sibling J. on Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday
of each week when they are physically with the father, the same to
occur between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. central time. When the
children are with the mother, they shall be entitled to telephone or
video chat with the father every other day between 6:30 and 7:00
p.m. central time. Nothing herein shall prohibit either parent from
allowing the children to telephone or video chat with the other
parent or with their half-sibling J. at other times when the children
so desire.
6.
7.
Each parent shall: (A) have complete and unrestricted access to all
health care and educational records, information, providers and
personnel involved with the health care and/or education of the
children, except for that which is protected by a right of
confidentiality in favor of the children; (B) sign any and all releases
or other documents necessary to permit the other to have such
access; and (C) be listed with all health care and education providers
as the primary parties to be contacted in the event of an emergency
and to receive all records and information from such providers with
respect to the said children.
8.
10.
Each parent:
(A)
shall keep the other informed of their current
residence address and telephone numbers at all times;
and
(B)
shall speak in positive terms about the other parent in
the presence or hearing of the children, and ensure
that third parties do so as well; and
(C)
shall encourage and promote a feeling of love,
affection and respect between the children and the
other parent;
(D) shall encourage and promote the free exercise of
visitation and custodial rights of the other parent with
the children; and
(E)
shall immediately notify the other in the event of any
serious illness of, or injury to, the children while in
their care, as well as plans for medical, mental health,
and dental examinations and/or treatment; and
(F)
shall administer any and all medications prescribed for
the children while in their care; and
(G) shall engage in and maintain reasonable, respectful,
courteous and adult communication with each other
regarding the children; and
(H) shall maintain free access and unhampered contact
between the children and the other parent; and
(I)
shall not discuss any adult issues with the children,
including but not limited to court proceedings,
custody, visitation or child support; and
(J)
shall not say or do anything that may alienate the
\
Hon. Richard B. Meyer.
h^i'V(cmmTO SECTION
.j
PURSUANT
1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE
TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER
BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE
CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A
PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON
THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
Checjjr applicable box:
O ! \ \\
5P5rder mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]:_il. OtMiXl'^
Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]:
cc:
Debra A. Whitson, E s q . v
.
Erin E. Hayes, Esq.
"^X^p U 3 1 |
David E. Rudgers, Esq. '^
Amanda
James