Ideman v. Ideman
| Decision Date | 21 December 1990 |
| Citation | 168 A.D.2d 1001,565 N.Y.S.2d 352 |
| Parties | Cheryl IDEMAN, Appellant, v. James IDEMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Kathleen Curran, Canandaigua, for appellant.
Norman Chirco, Auburn, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, J.P., and BOOMER, PINE, DAVIS and LOWERY, JJ.
Petitioner mother appeals from an order of Family Court summarily awarding permanent custody of the parties' child to respondent father as a consequence of her unauthorized removal of the child from the State in violation of a prior temporary custody and visitation order. Petitioner contends that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing. We agree.
The court may not make an initial determination of permanent custody without conducting a factual hearing to determine the fundamental issue of the best interests of the child (Mosesku v. Mosesku, 108 A.D.2d 795, 485 N.Y.S.2d 122; Matter of Blake v. Blake, 106 A.D.2d 916, 483 N.Y.S.2d 879; Allen v. Kriesel, 87 A.D.2d 992, 450 N.Y.S.2d 127). Custody determinations may not be made on the basis of allegations contained in conflicting affidavits (Bellinger v. Bellinger, 109 A.D.2d 1104, 487 N.Y.S.2d 232; Bowman v. Bowman, 19 A.D.2d 857, 244 N.Y.S.2d 38). Although removal of the child from the jurisdiction can result in denial or loss of custody, as can a parent's violation of a court order, removal of the child or violation of a court order is not a ground for depriving the parent (or the child) of the right to a hearing before the issue of custody is determined. Removal of the child from the jurisdiction is only one factor in determining the relative fitness of the parents, which constitutes the basis for the ultimate and "paramount" determination of what custody arrangement is in the child's best interests (Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 94, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765; Matter of Nehra v. Uhlar, 43 N.Y.2d 242, 248-251, 401 N.Y.S.2d 168, 372 N.E.2d 4). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has labeled a parent's "abduction, elopement or other defiance of legal process" as a relatively minor factor in the best interests determination (see, Matter of Nehra v. Uhlar, supra, at 251, 401 N.Y.S.2d 168, 372 N.E.2d 4; see also, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, supra ). We therefore reverse the order, direct that a law guardian be appointed for the child, and remit the matter for a custody hearing to be conducted by a different judge (see, Blake v. Blake, supra, 106 A.D.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radford v. Propper
...the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child's best interest"]; see also, Ideman v. Ideman, 168 A.D.2d 1001, 565 N.Y.S.2d 352; Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 402 N.Y.S.2d 213, supra ). Further, although the forensic examinations found that neither......
-
Aylesworth v. Aylesworth
...v. Wodka, 168 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, 565 N.Y.S.2d 353; see also, Wiles v. Wiles, 171 A.D.2d 398, 399, 578 N.Y.S.2d 292; Ideman v. Ideman, 168 A.D.2d 1001, 1002, 565 N.Y.S.2d 352). "The preexisting custodial arrangement, whether established by agreement or order, is a weighty factor, and the exi......
-
Rosiana C. v. Pierre S.
... ... Gallagher, 181 A.D.2d 363, 587 N.Y.S.2d 346, supra; Keating v. Keating, 147 A.D.2d 675, 538 N.Y.S.2d 286, supra; Ideman v. Ideman, ... 168 A.D.2d 1001, 565 N.Y.S.2d 352; cf., Matter of Nehra v. Uhlar, 43 N.Y.2d 242, 401 N.Y.S.2d 168, 372 N.E.2d 4) ... ...
-
Goodwin v. Goodwin
...the fundamental issue of the best interests of the children (Wodka v. Wodka, 168 A.D.2d 1000, 565 N.Y.S.2d 353; Ideman v. Ideman, 168 A.D.2d 1001, 565 N.Y.S.2d 352). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing to resolve the issue of custody based on the best interests of the children ( ......