Opinion
No. V-xxxxx-18/23C
05-04-2023
In the Matter of a Custody/Visitation Proceeding Pursuant to Article 6 of the Family Court Act, Y.K., Petitioner v. D.D., Respondent.
Y.K., Petitioner, by and through counsel Joanna Davis, Esq., Saratoga Springs, New York D.D., Respondent, by and through counsel Elizabeth Parizh, Esq., Ballston Spa, New York Vida Sheehan, Esq., Clifton Park, New York Attorney for the Children
Unpublished Opinion
Y.K., Petitioner, by and through counsel
Joanna Davis, Esq., Saratoga Springs, New York D.D., Respondent, by and through counsel
Elizabeth Parizh, Esq., Ballston Spa, New York
Vida Sheehan, Esq., Clifton Park, New York Attorney for the Children
Michael J. Hartnett, Family Court Judge
WHEREAS, Petitioner Y.K. having filed a Petition under Article 6 of the Family Court Act on February 10, 2023, seeking modification of an Amended UCCJEA Order of Custody and Parenting Time, seeking Court intervention to direct Respondent D.D. to authorize international travel for the children or in the alternative granting Petitioner sole legal custody for the purpose of consenting to the children traveling internationally; and
WHEREAS, the Court having conducted a Fact-Finding on the Petition herein on April 26, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Court having considered the sworn testimony of N.K. (through a Bulgarian interpreter); the sworn testimony of T.K.; the sworn testimony of Y. K.; the sworn testimony of D. D.; and Exhibits marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1; Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Petitioner's Exhibit 3; Petitioner's Exhibit 4; and Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The Court also having taken Judicial Notice of the Petition filed on February 10, 2023 and Judicial Notice of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.
NOW THEREFORE, after due consideration, the Court finds:
FACTUAL FINDINGS:
Judicial Notice
The Court, without objection from either party, took judicial notice of both the Petition, filed on February 10, 2023; as well as the order which is sought to be modified. The prior Order provides the party with joint legal custody. The Petition seeks modified joint legal custody for the purpose of obtaining passports for the children and to provide Y. K. (hereinafter either Y. K. or Petitioner Mother) with the ability to unilaterally make the determination to travel to Bulgaria to attend her sister's wedding.
The Court also having taken Judicial Notice that both the United States of America and the Republic of Bulgaria are both signatories to the international treaty known as the "1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction" (hereinafter "The Hague Convention"). The Country of Bulgaria became a signatory to The Hague Convention on January 1, 2005.
Testimony
N.K. testified through a Bulgarian interpreter - and on consent; through video conference (Microsoft Teams). N.K. is the maternal grandfather of the subject children. He resides in Bulgaria and works for a power company. Mr. K. testified that he has traveled to the United States on multiple occasions to visit with his daughter, Petitioner Mother, and his grandchildren, the subject children in this proceeding. N.K. testified that he and his wife have a very good relationship with their grandchildren, and they are very proud of their grandchildren. N.K. testified that his daughter T.K. (the subject children's maternal aunt) is set to be married in June of this year, with the wedding ceremony scheduled to take place in Bulgaria. Mr. K. expects approximately 60 guests to attend the wedding, including both family and friends. N.K. testified that travel from Clifton Park to his home in Bulgaria takes approximately thirty (30) hours one-way; a trip that his oldest grandchild (A.D.) made in approximately 2014 with Petitioner Mother.
Despite the language barrier and need for translation, the Court found N.K.'s general demeanor and responses to questions posed to him, both under direct and cross examination, to be both pensive and tenable. N.K. was a credible witness.
T.K., the children's maternal aunt, testified on consent through video conference (Microsoft Teams). T.K. testified that she currently resides in the Czech Republic with her fiancée. T.K. testified that she has a very close relationship with the subject children, her niece and nephew, and she speaks to them by phone or through video chat approximately once a week. T.K. testified that she has traveled to the United States to visit her sister (the Petitioner) and the subject children. T.K. testified that she plans to be married in June of this year with the ceremony to occur in Bulgaria. T.K. testified that approximately sixty guests are invited to the wedding, including "close" family members. T.K. testified that her wedding is an extremely significant event for her both personally and culturally. She testified that she has invited her sister, niece and nephew to "have them there with me" to share the special occasion and "make memories" as she considers each of them to be her "close" family members. T.K. presented as a sincere and thoughtful witness, and the Court found her testimony to be both credible and persuasive.
The Petitioner, Y. K. testified. Y. K. testified that she and the Respondent immigrated to the United States from Bulgaria in approximately 2006. Y. K. testified that she and Respondent Father were married and two children were born during the marriage; A.K. and N.K. Y. K. testified that she and Respondent Father were divorced. Y. K. testified that she has a residence in Clifton Park where the children attend [XXXXX] schools and that she has held steady employment [XXXXX] in Saratoga Springs for seven (7) years. Y. K. testified that she has a close relationship with her parents and her sister and attending the wedding in Bulgaria is very important to her. Y. K. testified that her children have a close, loving relationship with their aunt, T.K. Y. K. testified that she has been invited to her sister's wedding which is set to occur in June with the ceremony being held in the country of Bulgaria . Y. K. testified that she has previously traveled to Bulgaria with A.K., in approximately 2014, without incident and without Respondent Father accompanying them. Y. K. testified that Respondent Father consented to A.K. traveling to Bulgaria to visit his maternal side of the family in 2014.
The Petitioner, and her counsel, were generally reluctant to provide the exact location of the wedding for fear of Respondent knowing of the location and creating an issue with the venue.
Y. K. testified that she originally broached the possibility of travel with the Respondent Father through an email in January 2023. Y. K. testified that the Respondent Father has refused to consent to the children renewing their passports and also refusing to allow the children to travel outside of the United States; having offered various basis for his objections - including that he believes the Petitioner Mother may not return to the United States, that the children's grandfather is involved in organized crime and as a result the wedding will be unsafe, and that should something happen to the children he would be unable to come to their aid quickly. Petitioner testified that Respondent refused to allow her to take the children to Bulgaria for her sister's wedding unless he also went to Bulgaria with them. Petitioner testified that she felt Respondent's numerous objections to her taking the children to Bulgaria for the wedding was unreasonable and to just prevent her from taking the children to Bulgaria.
Petitioner testified regarding a recent incident where A.D. fell while going down a flight of stairs in her home, and that he suffered a sprained ankle. Petitioner testified that she informed Respondent of the incident, which Respondent acknowledged during his testimony. Petitioner was questioned regarding alleged portions of the stairs that did not have a railing on it, which Petitioner testified did not cause the incident. Petitioner also testified that there was a railing on the other side of the stairs that the parties' son did not grab or use when descending the stairs. Petitioner testified that her home had been inspected and determined to be in compliance with applicable building code.
Y. K. testified that if permitted, she plans to travel to Bulgaria for between seven and ten days in June 2022, with the specific dates being undefined because of not having finalized the travel arrangements. The Court found Y. K. to be a credible witness.
Respondent D. D. (hereinafter referred to as either D. D. or Respondent Father) testified. Mr. D.'s testimony was consistent with that of Y. K. with respect to the history between the parties. Respondent testified that he and Petitioner met in Bulgaria in 2001 or 2002 and were married in Bulgaria in around 2005. Respondent testified that they moved from Bulgaria to the United States in 2006, and that their two children were born in the United States. Respondent further testified that the parties were divorced in 2018.
Mr. D. testified that he objects to the children traveling to Bulgaria because he believes the children would be at risk of harm. Mr. D. testified that he believes the children's maternal grandfather is affiliated with organized crime and that there might be a "fight" or "shootout" at the wedding. He also testified that he believes the children would be at risk of the grandfather - because of fears the grandfather will "show off" if the children are visiting him at his home. Throughout his testimony, Mr. D. offered no testimony or proof to corroborate his beliefs about the grandfather or about his general concerns with travel to Bulgaria. Notably, Mr. D. indicated he would have no issue with the travel if the wedding were occurring in the Czech Republic. Mr. D. admitted that his concerns about the maternal grandfather's purported affiliation with organized crime were based entirely on "assumptions and stories." Mr. D. also acknowledged that A.K. and the Petitioner Mother previously traveled to Bulgaria without him in 2014 and returned to the United States without incident.
Respondent testified, as did Petitioner on cross-examination, concerning an incident at Petitioner's home on April 24, 2023, two days prior to the trial, wherein the parties' son sprained his ankle after tripping on or missing a step in Petitioner's home as he was descending the stairs. Respondent testified about concerns he had with the safety of the stairs that he had expressed to Petitioner.
The Court found Mr. D.'s responses to be generally evasive and consistently vague. The Court finds that D. D. was not a credible witness.
Documentary Evidence
On consent, the Court considered Petitioner's Exhibit 1, the parties prior Amended UCCJEA Order of Custody and Parenting Time, which provides for joint legal custody between the parties. The prior order is silent with respect to international travel.
On consent, the Court considered Petitioner's Exhibit 4, which consisted of a U.S. State Department travel advisory for the Republic of Bulgaria. The U.S. State Department's travel advisory indicates that travel to Bulgaria is considered "Level 1 " and to "exercise normal precautions." As provided in Petitioner's Exhibit 4, to travel internationally from the United States to Bulgaria with minor children, the traveler must either have permission from the other parent in the form of a notarized authorization, or alternatively have sole custodial decision-making authority granted by a Court for the purpose of authorizing travel with the children.
The U.S. State Department utilizes a scale for international travel advisories from 1 through 4; with 1 being the lowest category as "exercise normal precautions" to 4 being the highest category advising "do not travel."
Attorney for the Child's Position
The Attorney for the Child represented that the children want to travel to Bulgaria with their mother to attend their aunt's wedding. The Attorney for the Child indicated that both children were unequivocal and that a Lincoln hearing would not be necessary to ascertain their wishes. Counsel for both parties and the Attorney for the Child agreed that a Lincoln Hearing was not necessary. The Court did not hold a Lincoln hearing as it would not assist the Court in rendering a decision.
LAW
In a modification proceeding, the threshold issue is whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order or judgment which warrants a review of custody to ensure the child(ren)'s best interests. Matter of Tyrel v. Tyrel, 132 A.D.3d 1026 (3d Dept 2015); Matter of Patricia P. v. Dana Q., 106 A.D.3d 1386 (3d Dept 2013); Matter of Pollock v. Wakefield, 145 A.D.3d 1274 (3d Dept 2016).
A breakdown in communication between the parties and inability to cooperate with regard to parenting decisions can provide sufficient basis to establish a significant change in circumstances requiring review of the order. Smith v. O'Donnell, 107 A.D.3d 1311 (3d Dept 2013).
The focus in any custody determination is the best interest of the child. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982); Matter of Charles I. v. Khadejah I., 149 A.D.3d 1422 (3d Dept 2017); Matter of Snow v. Dunbar, 147 A.D.3d 1242 (3d Dept 2017). The hearing court may order a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification in the best interests of the child(ren). Ganzenmuller v. Rivera, 40 A.D.3d 756, 757 (2d Dept 2007) , citing Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 95; Matter of Brian S. v. Stephanie P., 34 A.D.3d 685 (2d Dept 2006). In making a determination as to what is in the child's best interest relative to custody and parenting time a court must weigh several relevant factors including, but not limited to: maintaining stability in the child's life, the quality of the respective home environments, the length of time of the present custody arrangement has been in place, each parent's past performance, relative fitness and ability to guide the child's intellectual and emotional development, and the effect the order of custody to one parent would have on the child's relationship with the other parent. Matter of Charles I. v. Khadejah I., 149 A.D.3d 1422 (3d Dept 2017); Matter of Snow v. Dunbar, 147 A.D.3d 1242 (3d Dept 2017); Matter of Paul LL. v. Tonya LL., 49 A.D.3d 1173 (3d Dept 2017); Matter of Knox v. Romano, 137 A.D.3d 1530 (3d Dept 2016).
As stated by the Court of Appeals in Tropea v. Tropea, the predominant emphasis in any proceeding under Article 6 of the Family Court Act, is the outcome that will serve the best interests of the child. Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739 (1996); see also Matter of Stephen G. v. Lara H., 139 A.D.3d 1131, 1132 (3d Dept. 2016).
One of the factors the Court may consider in determining what would be in the best interests of the child is the wishes of the child. See Matter of Yeager v. Yeager, 110 A.D.3d 1207, 1209 (3d Dept. 2013) citing Matter of Rivera v. LaSalle, 84 A.D.3d 1436, 1439 (3d Dept. 2011), (holding that the wishes of the 12-year-old child was entitled to consideration at a minimum).
ANALYSIS
It is clear to this Court that the parties cannot agree on whether the children should be able to travel internationally. The Court must decide if modified joint legal custody with final decision-making authority to one of the parents is appropriate, or if one parent should be provided sole legal custody.
The Court finds that Respondent Father's objection to the children's travel to the Republic of Bulgaria has no probative basis in fact. His objections are almost entirely based on assumptions and stories, and at best is rank speculation. His objections are significantly undercut by his own prior consent to the child, A.K., traveling to Bulgaria in 2014 with the Petitioner without him. There is no demonstrated history that Petitioner Mother would not return with the children to the United States or otherwise frustrate custodial access for Respondent Father. Petitioner Mother is an established resident of the United States, where the children attend school, and Petitioner Mother has maintained employment for over a decade. Even in the unlikely event that Petitioner Mother did not return from the planned trip, the Republic of Bulgaria is a signatory to The Hague Convention, providing Respondent Father with an avenue to maintain his custodial access to the children. During the course of the Fact-Finding hearing, there was not a scintilla of corroborative evidence provided to the Court by the Respondent to support any of Respondent Father's vague - and at times illusory - concerns about the proposed travel.
What is clear to the Court is the Respondent Father's clear intent to be obstinate in an effort to prevent the Petitioner Mother from traveling to Bulgaria - a position that will likely negatively affect the subject children. Notably, if the children aren't permitted to travel it will prevent them from experiencing a culturally significant event and spending time with their extended family - including their aunt, to-be uncle, grandparents, and cousins.
In summary there was no credible direct evidence submitted at the hearing that the children's health or safety would be at risk if they are permitted to accompany their mother on the trip to Bulgaria. Compare Awan v. Awan, 63 A.D.3d 733 (2d Dept. 2009).
Respondent's counsel argued that the relevance of the line of questioning on the incident related to the stairs was that it demonstrated that Petitioner did not put the safety of the children as a priority. Counsel further argued that simply relying upon the home inspection to say there was no issue with the home or stairs raised concerns about Petitioner not doing more for the safety of the children. Counsel further argued that this raised concerns for Respondent that Petitioner would not put the children's safety as a priority if in Bulgaria and something were to happen to the children. The Court found the arguments to be additional issues created the day of trial being used for Respondent's objection to the requested travel to Bulgaria, and the Court finds those arguments unpersuasive. The Court further finds that this new basis for objection by the Respondent, along with the other numerous objections, as nothing more than the Respondent's attempts to continually move the goal posts on what would be "acceptable" terms to for him to allow Petitioner to travel to Bulgaria with the children for her sister's wedding.
Coincidentally, when the Attorney for the Child questioned the Respondent on the sprained ankle incident and asked whether he came to New York to be with the parties' son after learning of same, Respondent testified that he did not because Petitioner told him the parties' son was fine. This was informative for the Court in that Respondent testified he would allow the travel to Bulgaria only if he also goes so that he can be close by should something happen and he needed to be with the children. However, Respondent did not come to New York to be with his son after a known injury to their son. Instead, the Respondent was satisfied with being advised by Petitioner that their son was fine.
The Court also notes that the children have indicated their wish to be allowed travel to Bulgaria to attend the wedding and see their extended family.
Respondent Father has argued that a trip to Bulgaria does not constitute a change in circumstances, and the Court generally agrees with that proposition - in that simply taking a trip is not necessarily on its own a change in circumstances. However, the actual travel isn't the basis of the assertion that there has been a substantial change in circumstances; rather it is the Respondent Father's unsupported refusal to authorize the travel - and a fundamental breakdown in communication between the parties - that provides a basis to review the underlying order. As noted in Matter of Snowden v. Snowden, 162 A.D.3d 675, 676 (2d Dept 2018), the Court granted the mother sole legal and residential custody of the child and permitted her to obtain a passport for the child to allow travel to South America to visit the maternal grandmother. The Court's basis for granting same was "the father's refusal to consent to the mother obtaining the passport, constituted a change in circumstances warranting modification." Id.
CONCLUSION
The mother has demonstrated, through the credible evidence adduced at trial, that the Respondent Father's rigid and baseless refusal to authorize travel constitutes a significant change in circumstances since this Court's previous order. The Respondent Father has unreasonably refused to cooperate with the Petitioner Mother to arrange for the necessary documents to be in place to facilitate the proposed travel; and has otherwise withheld his consent to the travel unreasonably. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been a significant change in circumstances warranting a review of the prior Order. Based on the evidence adduced at the Fact-Finding hearing, the Court finds that the children's best interests would be served by the arrangement for legal custody being modified to provide the Mother with sole decision making authority for purposes of international travel, and to include additional provisions related to obtaining and/or renewing passports, and providing for the provision of an itinerary.
SANCTIONS
Petitioner Mother has made application for the Court to impose sanctions upon Respondent Father. Costs and sanctions are appropriate where conduct is "undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another." 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a. While Respondent Father's objection to the travel is not supported; there is insufficient evidence before the Court relative to the father's actions, or his motivations, to render a determination that the conduct was solely intended to harass Petitioner Mother or to delay the proceedings, and as such the Court stops short of a determination that such conduct, at this juncture and under the facts presented here, constitutes frivolous conduct that warrants the imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, request for sanctions is denied.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing it is;
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Petition filed under Article 6 of the Family Court Act on February 10, 2023, seeking modification of an Amended UCCJEA Order of Custody and Parenting Time, is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Petitioner's application for sanctions against Respondent Father is hereby DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the November 26, 2018 Amended UCCJEA Order of Custody and Parenting Time is hereby modified to provide that it is
Legal Custody
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Y.K. and D.D. shall share modified joint legal custody of the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016): and Y. K. is hereby granted and shall have sole legal custody and decision-making authority for the purpose of (a) applying for, renewing, and otherwise obtaining passports for the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016); and (b) authorizing and otherwise providing permission for the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016) to travel internationally; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Y. K. is hereby permitted and otherwise authorized to travel internationally with the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016), outside of the United States of America without the permission or authorization of D. D. being required and without further documentation being required from D. D.; and it is further
Passports
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that pursuant to 22 C.F.R. §51.28(a)(3), that Y. K. is hereby authorized and may apply to obtain and/or renew a United States passport from the U.S. Department of State for the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016), without additional documentation being required from D. D.; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Attorney for the Children shall make arrangements to deliver the current U.S. Passports for the subject children, same being held temporarily in her possession pursuant to this Court's Temporary Order, to Petitioner Y. K.; and it is further
International Travel
ORDERED, that in the event that the parties are traveling internationally with the children, the traveling party shall provide the other party with at least forty-five (45) days written notice of their intent to travel with the child(ren), and a written itinerary shall be provided to the other party at least ten (10) days in advance of the travel, which shall include: (a) the anticipated dates of travel; (b) the purpose of the travel; (c) the general location of expected travel [Country and Region]; and (d) telephone contact information for the traveling party to enable the non-traveling party to contact either the traveling party and/or the children in the event of an emergency; and it is further
Physical/Residential Custody
ORDERED, that Y. K. shall have primary physical/residential custody of the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016); and it is further
ORDERED, that D. D. shall have parenting time with the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016), at the following intervals, such schedule to commence on May 5, 2023:
1. During the academic school year of the subject children, every other weekend from Friday at 7:00P.M. until Sunday at 6:00P.M.; and
2. During the summer recess, every other weekend from Friday at 7:00P.M. until Saturday at 7:00P.M.; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Y. K. may exercise parenting time during D. D.'s regularly scheduled parenting time in the event she is traveling with the children internationally and provided Y. K. has notified D. D. forty-five (45) days in advance of her intent to travel; and D. D. shall be entitled to an equivalent duration of make-up parenting time, to be exercised at times mutually agreed upon between the parties; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the parenting schedule for the parties as provided herein may be modified upon mutual agreement of the parties; and
ORDERED, that both parties shall be entitled to reasonable telephone and/or facetime (or equivalent video chat platform) contact with the subject children when the subject children are with the other party; and it is further
Custodial Exchanges
ORDERED, that the parties shall exchange the minor children, to wit: A.D. (dob: xx/xx/2018); and N.D. (dob: xx/xx/2016) in Bennington, Vermont at a public location mutually agreed upon between the parties on at least twenty-four (24) hours' notice; and it is further
Holidays and Major Events
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the holiday and major event parenting time shall supersede the regularly scheduled parenting time as provided herein; and it is further
Thanksgiving:
ORDERED, that in even numbered years, D. D. shall have parenting time on Thanksgiving from 7:00P.M. to the following Sunday at 7:00P.M.; and in odd numbered years Y. K. shall have parenting time on Thanksgiving from 7:00P.M. to the following Sunday at 7:00P.M.; and it is further
Christmas:
ORDERED, that in even numbered years, Y. K. shall have parenting time on the first half of Christmas break from Christmas Eve at 7:00P.M. through the first half of the Christmas break and D. D. shall have parenting time on the second half of Christmas break until New Years Day at 6:00P.M.; and in odd numbered years, D. D. shall have parenting time on the first half of Christmas break from Christmas Eve at 7:00P.M. through the first half of the Christmas break and Y. K. shall have parenting time on the second half of Christmas break until New Years Day at 6:00P.M.; and it is further
Easter:
ORDERED, that as a result of the parties celebrating both Christian Easter and Orthodox Easter, in each year one party shall have parenting time on Christian Easter and the other party shall have parenting time on Orthodox Easter, as the parties may mutually agree, reasonably in advance; and it is further
Mid-Winter School Recess (February Break):
ORDERED, that D. D. shall have parenting time each year during the mid-winter recess from school, to consist of D. D.'s regularly scheduled weekend plus the five days of break from school; and it is further
Spring Break Recess (March/April Break):
ORDERED, that Y. K. shall have parenting time each year during the spring break recess from school, to consist of Y. K.'s regularly scheduled weekend plus the five days of break from school; and it is further
Memorial Day/Labor Day Weekend:
ORDERED, that both Memorial Day Weekend and Labor Day Weekend shall be defined as commencing Friday at 7:00P.M. Memorial Day shall end on Monday at 6:00P.M. and Labor Day shall end on Monday at 7:00P.M. if there is no school the following day, and at 6:00P.M. if there is school the following day. In odd numbered years Y. K. shall have parenting time on Memorial Day Weekend and D. D. shall have parenting time on Labor Day Weekend. In even numbered years D. D. shall have parenting time on Memorial Day Weekend and Y.K. shall have parenting time on Labor Day Weekend; and
Summer Recess:
ORDERED, that both parties shall be entitled to two (2) non-consecutive weeks during the summer recess from school with a minimum written notice of two weeks to the other parent. In the event of a conflict, Y. K. shall have her choice in odd numbered years, and D. D. shall have his choice in even numbered years; and it is further
Miscellaneous Provisions
ORDERED, that both parties shall have appropriate sleeping accommodations for the minor children at their respective residences; and it is further
ORDERED, that both parties shall ensure that the minor children's homework is completed during their parenting time; and it is further
ORDERED, that neither party shall discuss Court proceedings directly with, or in the presence of, the subject children, nor shall they allow or condone any third-party discussing Court proceedings directly with the subject children, or in the presence of the subject children with the exception of any appointed Attorney for the Children; and it is further
ORDERED, that neither party shall make any disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory remarks about the other party to the subject children, or in the presence of the subject children, nor shall they allow or otherwise condone any third-party making disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory remarks about the other party to the subject children, or in the presence of the subject children; and it is further
ORDERED, that both parties shall take all reasonable steps necessary to promote and encourage a natural and loving parent-child relationship between the subject children and the other party, and no party shall undertake any action intended to degrade or undermine the parent-child relationship between the subject children and the other party; and it is further
ORDERED, that neither party shall make any threats towards or against the subject children; and it is further
ORDERED, that neither party shall utilize any form of corporal punishment towards the subject children; and it is further
ORDERED, that neither party shall use illegal substances. Neither party shall consume alcohol or marijuana to excess twenty-four (24) hours prior to, or during, any parenting time with the subject children. Both parties shall only use prescription medication that has been prescribed by a healthcare provider and shall only use such prescription medication in accordance with the directives of the prescribing healthcare provider; and it is further
ORDERED, that neither party shall expose the subject children to second-hand smoke by smoking tobacco products, marijuana, cigars or vaping in the direct presence of the subject children, including in any vehicle in which the subject children are transported or any residence in which the subject children reside, regardless of whether the subject children are present; and it is further
Change in Circumstances
ORDERED, that in the event that D. D. relocates to the Capital District of New York State, that relocation shall be considered a "substantial change in circumstances" for purposes of making application to seek modification of this Order; and it is further
Service and Right to Appeal
ORDERED, that the Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon counsel of record for the parties and the Attorney for the Child by electronic mail, same to be considered good and sufficient service pursuant to FCA §1113; and it is further
ORDERED, all parties shall take notice that: pursuant to section 1113 of the Family Court Act, an appeal must be taken within thirty days of receipt of the order by appellant in court, thirty-five days from the mailing of the order to the appellant by the clerk of the court, or thirty days after service by a party or Attorney for the Child upon the appellant, whichever is earliest.
It is so Ordered.