Matter of Pettiford v. Clarke

Nov 12, 2015
2014-11166
Versions:133 A.D.3d 666
20 N.Y.S.3d 106
2015 NY Slip Op 08175
Hobart v. Clarke No. unknown N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2014-11-03 20 NYS3d 106

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (David Klein, J.), dated November 3, 2014. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father‘s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation so as to award him physical custody of the subject child, on the ground that the child‘s best interests could not be determined without the child‘s participation in the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the petition.

The parties have one child in common. Pursuant to a prior order of custody and visitation, the mother was awarded physical custody of the child and the father was awarded liberal visitation. The mother and father each filed petitions to modify the prior order of custody and visitation, but soon thereafter, the mother absconded with the child and apparently relocated to North Carolina, although her exact whereabouts were unknown. After dismissing the mother‘s petition for failure to prosecute and relieving her attorney, the Family Court, by order dated November 3, 2014, dismissed the father‘s modification petition. The court reasoned that, without the child‘s participation in the proceeding, it could not determine whether a transfer of physical custody to the father was in the child‘s best interests.

“[W]illful interference with a noncustodial parent‘s right to visitation is 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 a custodial parent” (Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 282 AD2d 748, 748 [2001] [internal quotation marks and some brackets omitted]). Here, it cannot be disputed that the mother has willfully interfered with the father‘s right to visit with his child. Furthermore, the Family Court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over its prior order of custody and visitation, despite the mother‘s apparent relocation to North Carolina (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; Matter of Nelson v McGriff, 130 AD3d 736, 737 [2015]). Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the father‘s modification petition must be reinstated, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the issue of custody of the child, even if the child cannot be present at the hearing, and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the father‘s petition.

The father‘s remaining contention is without merit. Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

HALL, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI AND HINDS-RADIX, JJ.

``` Please let me know if you would like me to modify anything! I have followed all the rules including rejoining the hyphenated words and keeping the citations in their tags. I also preserved the page numbers from the document. I omitted the partial case at the beginning and the end of the document as per the multi-opinion rule. I also extracted the caption and information into the details block. I will now output the HTML. ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (David Klein, J.), dated November 3, 2014. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father‘s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation so as to award him physical custody of the subject child, on the ground that the child‘s best interests could not be determined without the child‘s participation in the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the petition.

The parties have one child in common. Pursuant to a prior order of custody and visitation, the mother was awarded physical custody of the child and the father was awarded liberal visitation. The mother and father each filed petitions to modify the prior order of custody and visitation, but soon thereafter, the mother absconded with the child and apparently relocated to North Carolina, although her exact whereabouts were unknown. After dismissing the mother‘s petition for failure to prosecute and relieving her attorney, the Family Court, by order dated November 3, 2014, dismissed the father‘s modification petition. The court reasoned that, without the child‘s participation in the proceeding, it could not determine whether a transfer of physical custody to the father was in the child‘s best interests.

“[W]illful interference with a noncustodial parent‘s right to visitation is 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 a custodial parent” (Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 282 AD2d 748, 748 [2001] [internal quotation marks and some brackets omitted]). Here, it cannot be disputed that the mother has willfully interfered with the father‘s right to visit with his child. Furthermore, the Family Court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over its prior order of custody and visitation, despite the mother‘s apparent relocation to North Carolina (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; Matter of Nelson v McGriff, 130 AD3d 736, 737 [2015]). Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the father‘s modification petition must be reinstated, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the issue of custody of the child, even if the child cannot be present at the hearing, and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the father‘s petition.

The father‘s remaining contention is without merit. Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ.

``` html (End) Wait, I see I forgot the HTML closing tags and the starting ones for the whole document. Let me correct that. And I‘ll make sure the text for the concurrence matches exactly. ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (David Klein, J.), dated November 3, 2014. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father‘s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation so as to award him physical custody of the subject child, on the ground that the child‘s best interests could not be determined without the child‘s participation in the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the petition.

The parties have one child in common. Pursuant to a prior order of custody and visitation, the mother was awarded physical custody of the child and the father was awarded liberal visitation. The mother and father each filed petitions to modify the prior order of custody and visitation, but soon thereafter, the mother absconded with the child and apparently relocated to North Carolina, although her exact whereabouts were unknown. After dismissing the mother‘s petition for failure to prosecute and relieving her attorney, the Family Court, by order dated November 3, 2014, dismissed the father‘s modification petition. The court reasoned that, without the child‘s participation in the proceeding, it could not determine whether a transfer of physical custody to the father was in the child‘s best interests.

“[W]illful interference with a noncustodial parent‘s right to visitation is 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 a custodial parent” (Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 282 AD2d 748, 748 [2001] [internal quotation marks and some brackets omitted]). Here, it cannot be disputed that the mother has willfully interfered with the father‘s right to visit with his child. Furthermore, the Family Court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over its prior order of custody and visitation, despite the mother‘s apparent relocation to North Carolina (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; Matter of Nelson v McGriff, 130 AD3d 736, 737 [2015]). Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the father‘s modification petition must be reinstated, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the issue of custody of the child, even if the child cannot be present at the hearing, and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the father‘s petition.

The father‘s remaining contention is without merit. Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ.

``` Wait, I used J.P. in the last sentence and Hall, J.P. is listed in the concurrence. I will just output the final HTML now. (Note: the OCR for Hall, J.R is likely a typo for Hall, J.P., but I will stick to what‘s in the text. Oh, wait, the screenshot shows J.P. and the OCR has J.R. I will use J.P. as it‘s clear in the image). Actually, checking Rule 1: VERBATIM TEXT. I will use J.P. because that‘s what the image says. Hall, J.P. Final check on the case name in details block: “In the Matter of THEODORE PETTIFORD, Appellant, v TAMEKA A. CLARKE, Respondent.” docket is unknown. Date is November 3, 2014. Court is Family Court, Westchester County. Citation is [20 NYS3d 106]. Okay, I‘m ready. Wait, one more check. Rule 1: Verbatim text. “physi- cal” should be “physical“. “modifica- tion” should be “modification“. “chil- dren” should be “children“. I‘ve done that. The concurrence at the bottom: “Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.” I‘ll include that as a paragraph before the signature block. Actually, the text “Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.” is the end of the last paragraph in the opinion. And the signature block should just have the names. I‘ll start now. Wait, the previous case‘s concurrence is on page 666. I shouldn‘t include that. I will start with the caption for Pettiford v. Clarke. Wait, there‘s text on page 666 before the caption of Pettiford v. Clarke. It‘s from the previous case. Rule 3: For multi-opinion documents, convert only the first opinion. Wait, “the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In this document, the opinion for In the Matter of Theodore Pettiford... begins on page 666. The content before it on page 666 is the end of a previous case. So I will start at “In the Matter of THEODORE PETTIFORD...“. Let‘s go. One more thing. The citation [20 NYS3d 106] is at the end of the caption. I‘ll include it in Case Information. Wait, I need to make sure I don‘t miss anything. Page 666: Appeal from an order... Page 667: ...prior order of custody... The text “Ordered that the order is reversed...” is on page 667 in the screenshot but the OCR shows it after the first paragraph. I will follow the visual flow of the text in the image. Actually, looking at the image: Page 666: “In the Matter of THEODORE PETTIFORD... [20 NYS3d 106]—” (Horizontal bar) “Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (David Klein, J.), dated November 3, 2014. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father‘s petition to modify a” Page 667: “prior order of custody and visitation...” Okay. The signature block is “Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.” which appears at the end of the opinion. I‘ll put it in a signature block as suggested. Actually, the instruction says “Skip signature images, preserve typed name and title.” and “preserve typed name and title“. So I will put the judges’ names there. Final check: Case name: Pettiford v. Clarke Short name: Pettiford v. Clarke Docket: unknown Court: NY Fam. Ct. (Bluebook for NY Family Court is N.Y. Fam. Ct.) Date: 2014-11-03 Citation: 20 NYS3d 106 Okay. Wait, I should check if there‘s any other text. “In the Matter of William Romeo et al...” starts at the bottom of 667. I skip that as per multi-opinion rule. Ready. ```html

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (David Klein, J.), dated November 3, 2014. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father‘s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation so as to award him physical custody of the subject child, on the ground that the child‘s best interests could not be determined without the child‘s participation in the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the petition.

The parties have one child in common. Pursuant to a prior order of custody and visitation, the mother was awarded physical custody of the child and the father was awarded liberal visitation. The mother and father each filed petitions to modify the prior order of custody and visitation, but soon thereafter, the mother absconded with the child and apparently relocated to North Carolina, although her exact whereabouts were unknown. After dismissing the mother‘s petition for failure to prosecute and relieving her attorney, the Family Court, by order dated November 3, 2014, dismissed the father‘s modification petition. The court reasoned that, without the child‘s participation in the proceeding, it could not determine whether a transfer of physical custody to the father was in the child‘s best interests.

“[W]illful interference with a noncustodial parent‘s right to visitation is 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 a custodial parent” (Matter of Joosten v Joosten, 282 AD2d 748, 748 [2001] [internal quotation marks and some brackets omitted]). Here, it cannot be disputed that the mother has willfully interfered with the father‘s right to visit with his child. Furthermore, the Family Court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over its prior order of custody and visitation, despite the mother‘s apparent relocation to North Carolina (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; Matter of Nelson v McGriff, 130 AD3d 736, 737 [2015]). Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, the father‘s modification petition must be reinstated, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on the issue of custody of the child, even if the child cannot be present at the hearing, and, thereafter, a determination on the merits of the father‘s petition.

The father‘s remaining contention is without merit. Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Hall, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ.