Lawrence v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 16 June 2017 |
| Citation | 54 N.Y.S.3d 358 (Mem) |
| Parties | In the Matter of Cheris N. LAWRENCE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Stephen C. LAWRENCE, Respondent–Respondent. Susan B. Marris, Esq., Attorney for the Child, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Susan B. Marris, Attorney for the Child, Manlius, appellant pro se.
Stephanie N. Davis, Attorney for the Child, Oswego.
In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the Attorney for the Child representing the parties' oldest child appeals from an order dismissing the mother's petition seeking modification of a custody order. Inasmuch as "the mother has not taken an appeal from that order[, the] child [ ], while dissatisfied with the order, cannot force the mother to litigate a petition that she has since abandoned" (Matter of Kessler v. Fancher, 112 A.D.3d 1323, 1324, 978 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). A child in a custody matter does not have "full-party status" (Matter of McDermott v. Bale, 94 A.D.3d 1542, 1543, 943 N.Y.S.2d 708 ), and we decline to permit the child's desires "to chart the course of litigation" (Kessler, 112 A.D.3d at 1324, 978 N.Y.S.2d 501 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newton v. McFarlane
...and considered the arguments advanced by that attorney in opposition to the settlement.We recognize that in Matter of Lawrence v. Lawrence , 151 A.D.3d 1879, 54 N.Y.S.3d 358 and Matter of Kessler v. Fancher , 112 A.D.3d 1323, 978 N.Y.S.2d 501, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dism......
-
Kanya J. v. Christopher K.
...standing to bring this motion inasmuch as a child in a custody matter does not have full party status (see Matter of Lawrence v. Lawrence, 151 A.D.3d 1879, 54 N.Y.S.3d 358 [2017] ; Matter of Kessler v. Fancher, 112 A.D.3d 1323, 1324, 978 N.Y.S.2d 501 [2013] ).2 Although one of the three con......
-
Brady J.S. v. Darla A.B.
...v. McFarlane , 174 A.D.3d 67, 71-74, 103 N.Y.S.3d 445 [2d Dept. 2019] ; cf. Matter of Lawrence v. Lawrence , 151 A.D.3d 1879, 1879, 54 N.Y.S.3d 358 [4th Dept. 2017] ). The mother and the AFC contend that remittal is required because Family Court failed to conduct a scheduled Lincoln hearing......
- Amber B. v. Scott C.