Matter of Weil v. Clavering

3 Citing cases

  1. Larkin v. White

    79 A.D.3d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    Here, based on the totality of the circumstances ( see Eschbachv Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174), the Family Court's determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record, and was in the best interests of the child. Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly considered the child's need for stability and his religious upbringing ( see generally Spring v Glawon, 89 AD2d 980; cf Gerson v Gerson, 57 AD3d 606; Matter of Weil v Clavering, 215 AD2d 766). The mother's remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

  2. In the Matter of Booth v. Booth

    8 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming lower court decision that it was in the best interests of the children to remain with their father despite one incident of domestic violence against their mother

    Finally, the court allowed petitioner, who is a Jehovah's Witness, to take her children to religious services with her but prohibited her from taking them with her when she stopped at the homes of strangers in various neighborhoods to teach others about her religion. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the court did not thereby infringe upon her constitutional rights inasmuch as there was no interference with her own religious practices ( see Matter of Weil v. Clavering, 215 A.D.2d 766; Barran v. Nayyar, 174 A.D.2d 1012). Contrary to the further contention of petitioner, the evidence established that it was not in the best interests of the children to accompany her to the homes of strangers.

  3. Matter of Orner v. Orner

    263 A.D.2d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    The noncustodial parent has a right to regular and frequent visitation, since the best interests of the children lie in their being nurtured and guided by both parents ( see, Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775). Contrary to the father's further contention, the court's order does not interfere with his right to practice the religion of his choice ( see, Matter of Weil v. Clavering, 215 A.D.2d 766; Barran v. Nayyar, 174 A.D.2d 1012) or undermine the parties' agreement to raise the children as Orthodox Jews ( see, Matter of Arain v. Arain, 209 A.D.2d 406). The father's remaining contentions are without merit.