From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Joosten v. Joosten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 2001
282 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

April 5, 2001.

April 30, 2001.

Judith Ellen Stone, Merrick, N.Y., for appellant.

Stephen A. Moser, East Meadow, N.Y., for respondent.

Paul B. Guttenberg, Syosset, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Koenig, J.), entered August 5, 1999, which denied his applications, inter alia, to modify an order of the same court, dated March 12, 1998, awarding the mother custody of the parties' children, and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the applications are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a hearing in accordance herewith, on condition that the petitioner provide the respondent with notice of the proceedings in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 75-f.

The parties have two children and the mother is the custodial parent. Pursuant to an order of the Family Court dated March 12, 1998, the father was given certain visitation rights. The mother subsequently absconded with the children and relocated to Arizona. The father filed various applications in the Family Court seeking modification and enforcement of his visitation rights and, ultimately, a change in custody. The Family Court dismissed the applications without conducting a hearing.

"[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 Glenn v. Glenn, 262 A.D.2d 885, 887; see, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380). Consequently, under the circumstances of this case, there should be a hearing on the custody issue and, if necessary, the visitation issues raised in the applications (see, Entwistle v. Entwistle, supra), provided the mother is given notice of the proceedings (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-f).

The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Joosten v. Joosten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 2001
282 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of Joosten v. Joosten

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF CRAIG JOOSTEN, appellant, v. CAROL JOOSTEN, resondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 30, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 335

Citing Cases

Williams v. Norfleet

er of Hongach v. Hongach, 44 A.D.3d 664, 841 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; Matter of Miller v. Lee, 225 A.D.2d 778, 639…

Williams v. Norfleet

The mother presented sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances, including the father's alleged…