Bluemke v. Bluemke
| Decision Date | 20 November 1989 |
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 574,548 N.Y.S.2d 31 |
| Parties | Eric BLUEMKE, Appellant, v. Jacqueline BLUEMKE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles E. Holster III, Garden City, for appellant.
Roberta Goldberg, Garden City, for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BROWN, RUBIN and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a custody proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law articles 5 and 5-A, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated May 25, 1989, which awarded custody of the infant issue of the parties to the respondent mother.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married in August 1987 when both were 19 years old, and took up residence in an apartment in the petitioner's parents' home. Shortly after their son Matthew was born in April 1988 the parties began to experience marital difficulties and in July 1988 while in Florida visiting her parents, the respondent told the petitioner that she did not wish to remain married. The respondent remained in Florida, while the petitioner returned to New York. Approximately one month later, the petitioner, apparently on the advice of counsel, returned to Florida and surreptitiously removed Matthew to New York, where he commenced the instant proceeding. After a hearing, custody was awarded to the respondent.
As has been aptly noted by Professor Alan D. Scheinkman:
(Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C240:9, at 594).
The focus of the court's inquiry is always the best interests of the child involved, and in making this determination, the court's primary concern is "the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child" (Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260).
With the foregoing in mind, we agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that under the totality of the circumstances,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Young
...Prete v. Prete, 193 A.D.2d 804, 598 N.Y.S.2d 79), such recommendations are entitled to some weight (see generally, Bluemke v. Bluemke, 155 A.D.2d 574, 575, 548 N.Y.S.2d 31; Asher v. Asher, 79 A.D.2d 904, 905, 434 N.Y.S.2d 245; Guzzo v. Guzzo, 66 A.D.2d 833, 411 N.Y.S.2d 408), as is the case......
-
Florence B. v. Carol M.
...standard also addresses the child's social, emotional and intellectual development in the custodial home. (Bluemke v. Bluemke, 155 A.D.2d 574, 548 N.Y.S.2d 31 (2nd Dep't 1989); Eschbach, supra ). Where neither party is unfit, the courts oppose shifting custody in order to maintain the child......
-
Muller v. Muller
...84 N.Y.2d 1027, 623 N.Y.S.2d 182, 647 N.E.2d 454; Matter of Prete v. Prete, 193 A.D.2d 804, 598 N.Y.S.2d 79; Bluemke v. Bluemke, 155 A.D.2d 574, 575, 548 N.Y.S.2d 31; Asher v. Asher, 79 A.D.2d 904, 905, 434 N.Y.S.2d 245; Guzzo v. Guzzo, 66 A.D.2d 833, 411 N.Y.S.2d While the two teenage chil......
-
Jaeger v. Jaeger
...There is no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent (see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 70, 240; Bluemke v. Bluemke, 155 A.D.2d 574, 575, 548 N.Y.S.2d 31). Primary among the factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child are the ability to provide ......