Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System
Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System
76 Kim Susser Notes 1. Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), at 100 (hereinafter APA Report). 2. Evan Stark, Building a Domestic Violence Case, in Lawyer’s Manual on Domestic Violence: Representing the Victim (Anne M. Lopatto and James C. Neely eds, 1st ed 1995). 3. Laws of 1962, ch 85. 4. Id. at 273-74 (emphasis added). 5. Lynne R. Kurtz, Protecting New York’s Children: An Argument for the Creation of a Rebuttable Presumption Against Awarding a Spouse Abuser Custody of a Child, 60 Alb L Rev 1345, 1350 (1997); see also Katherine M. Reihing, Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence and Their Children After Divorce: The American Law Institute’s Model, 37 Fam & Conciliation Cts Rev 393, 395 (1999); see e.g. Ala Code 1975 § 30-3-131; Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 25-403 (West Supp 1999); Ark Code Ann § 9-13-101(c) (Michie 1997); Colo Rev Stat Ann § 14-10-124 (1.5) (West 1999); Del Code Ann tit 13, § 705A (Supp 1998); Fla Stat Ann § 61.13(2)(b)(2) (West Supp 1999); Haw Rev Stat Ann § 571-46(9) (Michie Supp 1998); Idaho Code § 32-717B(5); La Rev Stat Ann § 9:364 (West Supp. 1999); Minn Stat Ann § 518.17(2)(d) (West Supp 1999); Nev Rev Stat § 125.480(5) ([year]); NJ Rev Stat Ann § 458:17 (1993); NM Cent Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) (1997); Okla Stat Ann tit 10 § 21.1(D) (West 1995); Tex Fam Code Ann § 153.004 (West 1996); Wash Rev Code Ann § 26.09.191 (2)(a)(iii) (West 1997); Wis Stat Ann § 767.24(2)(b)(2)(c) (West 1993); Wyo Stat Ann § 20-2-113(a) (Michie 1999). 6. Laws of 1996, ch 85. 7. See E.R. v G.S.R., 170 Misc 2d 659 (Fam Ct, Westchester County, 1996); J.D. v N.D., 170 Misc 2d 877 (Fam Ct, Westchester County, 1996). 8. Id. at 262. 9. Finkbeiner v Finkbeiner, 270 AD2d 417 (2d Dept 2000); Samala v Samala, 309 AD2d 798 (2d Dept 2003). 10. See Lee Elkins and Jane Fosbinder, New York Law of Domestic Violence, 591 (1998). 11. See Farkas v Farkas, NYLJ, July 13, 1992, at 31 (Sup Ct, NY County); Rohan v Rohan, 213 AD2d 804 (3d Dept 1995).
Litigating Custody and Visitation 77 12. See e.g. Mitchell v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 845 (3 Dept 1994); Olmo v Olmo, 140 AD2d 677 (2d Dept 1988). 13. See e.g. Anonymous G. v Anonymous G., 132 AD2d 459 (1st Dept 1987). 14. See e.g. Peters v Blue, NYLJ, June 23, 1997, at 29 (Fam Ct, NY County); Pratt v Wood, 210 AD2d 741 (3 Dept 1994). 15. See Kaplan v Chamberlain, NYLJ, Sept. 17, 1993, at 27 (Fam Ct, NY County); TI v PS, NYLJ, June 5, 1995, at 31 (Fam Ct, NY County, 1995). 16. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act § 207; Domestic Relations Law § 76. 17. See Laws of 1999, ch 378. 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. 213 AD2d 804 (3d Dept 1995). 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. 263 AD2d 783 (3d Dept 1999), 24. Acevedo v Acevedo, 200 AD2d 567 (2d Dept 1994). 25. Spencer v Small, 263 AD2d 783, 785 (3d Dept 1999). 26. NYLJ, July 13, 1992, at 31, col 1 (Sup Ct, NY County). 27. Laws of 1996, ch 85. 28. Fields, M. D., The Impact of Spouse Abuse on Children and Its Relevance in Custody and Visitation Decisions in New York State, 240 Cornell J L and Pub Pol 221 (1994). 29. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force, Report on Violence and the Family (1996), at 37. 30. Moorehead v Moorehead, 197 AD2d 517, 519 (2d Dept 1993). The Court found that the parties were “equally able to care for their children” and therefore, stability was of central importance. The court also considered the young ages of the children who were 1.5 and 2 years old. 31. In Moorehead, the court found that a long-term custody arrangement may be disrupted if it would serve the best interest of the child. Id. at 519-520.
- Page 45 and 46: As a lawyer you may find yourself h
- Page 47 and 48: Danger and Safety 29 however, is no
- Page 49 and 50: Appendix Safety Planning Checklist
- Page 51 and 52: Safety Planning Checklist continued
- Page 53: Notes Danger and Safety 35 1. Jacqu
- Page 57 and 58: Victim Who Needs Child Support 39 4
- Page 59 and 60: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 61 and 62: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 63 and 64: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 65 and 66: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 67 and 68: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 69 and 70: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 71 and 72: Notes Litigating Family Offense Pro
- Page 73: Litigating Family Offense Proceedin
- Page 77 and 78: Custody disputes occur frequently i
- Page 79 and 80: Litigating Custody and Visitation 6
- Page 81 and 82: Litigating Custody and Visitation 6
- Page 83 and 84: Primary Caretaker Litigating Custod
- Page 85 and 86: Litigating Custody and Visitation 6
- Page 87 and 88: Litigating Custody and Visitation 6
- Page 89 and 90: Litigating Custody and Visitation 7
- Page 91 and 92: Litigating Custody and Visitation 7
- Page 93: Litigating Custody and Visitation 7
- Page 97 and 98: Litigating Custody and Visitation 7
- Page 99 and 100: The Law Regarding Child Welfare and
- Page 101 and 102: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 103 and 104: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 105 and 106: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 107 and 108: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 109 and 110: Respondent Mothers Representing Dom
- Page 111 and 112: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 113 and 114: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 115 and 116: Representing Domestic Violence Vict
- Page 117 and 118: This article is a practical guide f
- Page 119 and 120: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 121 and 122: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 123 and 124: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 125 and 126: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 127 and 128: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 129 and 130: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 131 and 132: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 133 and 134: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 135 and 136: Notes Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague
- Page 137 and 138: Moving On: UCCJEA, The Hague Conven
- Page 139 and 140: The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdict
- Page 141 and 142: UCCJEA and Domestic Violence: A Cas
- Page 143 and 144: Safety Issues UCCJEA and Domestic V
76 Kim Susser<br />
Notes<br />
1. Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force<br />
on Violence and the Family (1996), at 100 (hereinafter APA Report).<br />
2. Evan Stark, Building a Domestic Violence Case, in Lawyer’s <strong>Manual</strong> on<br />
Domestic Violence: Representing the Victim (Anne M. Lopatto and James<br />
C. Neely eds, 1st ed 1995).<br />
3. Laws of 1962, ch 85.<br />
4. Id. at 273-74 (emphasis added).<br />
5. Lynne R. Kurtz, Protecting New York’s Children: An Argument for the<br />
Creation of a Rebuttable Presumption Against Awarding a Spouse Abuser<br />
Custody of a Child, 60 Alb L Rev 1345, 1350 (1997); see also Katherine M.<br />
Reihing, Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence and Their Children After<br />
Divorce: The American Law Institute’s Model, 37 Fam & Conciliation Cts<br />
Rev 393, 395 (1999); see e.g. Ala Code 1975 § 30-3-131; Ariz Rev Stat<br />
Ann § 25-403 (West Supp 1999); Ark Code Ann § 9-13-101(c) (Michie<br />
1997); Colo Rev Stat Ann § 14-10-124 (1.5) (West 1999); Del Code Ann<br />
tit 13, § 705A (Supp 1998); Fla Stat Ann § 61.13(2)(b)(2) (West Supp<br />
1999); Haw Rev Stat Ann § 571-46(9) (Michie Supp 1998); Idaho Code §<br />
32-717B(5); La Rev Stat Ann § 9:364 (West Supp. 1999); Minn Stat Ann §<br />
518.17(2)(d) (West Supp 1999); Nev Rev Stat § 125.480(5) ([year]); NJ<br />
Rev Stat Ann § 458:17 (1993); NM Cent Code § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) (1997);<br />
Okla Stat Ann tit 10 § 21.1(D) (West 1995); Tex Fam Code Ann § 153.004<br />
(West 1996); Wash Rev Code Ann § 26.09.191 (2)(a)(iii) (West 1997); Wis<br />
Stat Ann § 767.24(2)(b)(2)(c) (West 1993); Wyo Stat Ann § 20-2-113(a)<br />
(Michie 1999).<br />
6. Laws of 1996, ch 85.<br />
7. See E.R. v G.S.R., 170 Misc 2d 659 (Fam Ct, Westchester County, 1996);<br />
J.D. v N.D., 170 Misc 2d 877 (Fam Ct, Westchester County, 1996).<br />
8. Id. at 262.<br />
9. Finkbeiner v Finkbeiner, 270 AD2d 417 (2d Dept 2000); Samala v Samala,<br />
309 AD2d 798 (2d Dept 2003).<br />
10. See Lee Elkins and Jane Fosbinder, New York Law of Domestic Violence,<br />
591 (1998).<br />
11. See Farkas v Farkas, NYLJ, July 13, 1992, at 31 (Sup Ct, NY County);<br />
Rohan v Rohan, 213 AD2d 804 (3d Dept 1995).
Change language