CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pavone v. Bronson

The case involves a dispute over child custody between a mother and a father, who initially shared joint custody of their son. In late 2008, both parents petitioned for sole custody. During the hearing, allegations of child abuse by the mother, made by the paternal grandfather, were denied by the mother and found unfounded by Child Protective Services. The mother also presented evidence that the father had encouraged the child to lie to his dentist about an injury and feared the father's 'intimidation techniques.' The Family Court, Dutchess County, in an order dated July 15, 2009, granted the mother primary legal and physical custody, denying the father's petition, citing concerns that the father and paternal grandfather might undermine the mother-child relationship. The father appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the determination that joint custody was no longer appropriate and that primary custody with the mother served the child's best interests, given her greater willingness to ensure meaningful contact with the other parent.

Custody modificationParental rightsBest interests of the childFamily Court ActAppellate reviewCredibility assessmentJoint custodySole custodyParental alienationChild protection
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Osborne

The case involves an appeal by the mother from a Family Court order granting the father's application to modify a prior custody order. Initially, the mother had sole custody, but after allegations of child abuse and non-compliance with an order of protection prohibiting contact with two individuals with concerning histories, the Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents, with the father having physical custody. Subsequently, both parents filed petitions, and the Family Court found the mother in violation of the order of protection and granted the father sole custody with supervised visitation for the mother. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the modification was in the child's best interest, citing the mother's persistent non-compliance and the child's improved well-being under the father's primary care.

Custody DisputeParental RightsChild WelfareFamily Court AppealOrder of Protection ViolationSupervised VisitationBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsModification of CustodyDomestic Violence History
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John A. v. Bridget M.

This case concerns a child custody dispute involving twin girls born in September 1999. The mother, residing in New York City, had custody until June 2004 when it was granted to the father, conditioned on his relocation. The Family Court found that the mother coached the children to make false accusations of sexual abuse against the father, a finding supported by the Law Guardian and neutral experts. Despite these findings, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain with their mother. The court reasoned that awarding custody to the father would mean the children would primarily be raised by their stepmother or paid caregivers due to the father's frequent business travel. The court also noted the mother's desistance from such misconduct since July 2003 and the potential involvement of another adult in planting the false accusations.

Child custodyParental alienationFalse accusationsSexual abuse allegationsBest interests of the childForensic evaluationJudicial discretionFamily lawAppellate reviewRelocation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of A.P.P., a Minor Child

This case involves an appeal brought by the biological mother of A.P.P. following a default judgment that removed her as the sole managing conservator and appointed the biological father as a joint managing conservator. The appellant contended that the trial court erred by ordering the default judgment and denying her motion for new trial. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial based on the "Craddock" elements, which require establishing that the failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, presenting a meritorious defense, and ensuring no delay or injury to the plaintiff. The court found that the appellant satisfied all three prongs, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Default Judgment ReversalMotion for New TrialCraddock TestParent-Child ConservatorshipChild Custody ModificationBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceMeritorious Defense
References
0
Case No. 07-24-00362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2026

Yeimi Fernandez, as Mother and Guardian of J.J.M., a Minor Child v. Heartland Co-Op, Corp.

The case involves an appeal by Yeimi Fernandez, mother and guardian of J.J.M., a minor child, against Heartland Co-op, Corp. Fernandez sued Heartland for gross negligence and wrongful death following the on-the-job death of Michael Molden in a grain bin accident. The trial court granted Heartland's no-evidence summary judgment motion and denied Fernandez's subsequent motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in granting summary judgment due to the lack of evidence supporting gross negligence on Heartland's part, specifically noting Molden's failure to adhere to safety policies. The denial of the motion for new trial was also upheld because Fernandez did not challenge the exclusion of the newly discovered evidence.

Summary JudgmentWrongful DeathGross NegligenceGrain Bin AccidentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActNo-Evidence MotionAppellate ReviewSafety PoliciesEmployee Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 02-13-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2013

in the Interest of P.J., Jr., a Child

Mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) regarding her son, P.J. Jr. Father filed the SAPCR petition after Mother and Father separated, alleging family violence and requesting supervised visitation, child support, and injunctive relief. Mother defaulted by not filing an answer or appearing at the initial hearing. The trial court granted Father immediate possession of Junior and ordered supervised visitation for Mother and child support. Mother's motion for new trial was denied because she failed to show that her failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent and did not set up a meritorious defense. The appellate court also addressed Mother’s arguments regarding Father's standing to establish paternity and the scope of relief granted, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.

Family LawChild CustodyParental RightsDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialPaternityDue ProcessAppellate ReviewFamily ViolenceSupervised Visitation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2011

Battle v. Thomson

This case concerns an appeal by a mother from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 24, 2011, which dismissed her petition to modify a previous custody and visitation order from July 22, 2010. The mother contended that the dismissal was erroneous as it occurred without a full hearing and without considering reports from a therapeutic social worker. However, the appellate court dismissed the mother's appeal as academic. This decision was based on a prior ruling in Matter of Thomson v Battle, which had already reversed the July 22, 2010, order and remitted the matter for a new hearing in the Family Court, Queens County, thereby rendering the mother's current appeal moot.

Family LawCustody DisputeVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewAcademic AppealMootnessOrder ModificationJudicial ReviewFamily CourtQueens County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michelle V. v. Brandon V.

The mother appealed Family Court orders that denied her request to relocate with her child to New Jersey and granted sole custody to the father. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's custody and relocation determinations, finding ample support in the record for the father's objections to the move and the mother's lack of genuine effort to find local employment. However, the appellate court modified the visitation order, ruling that requiring the mother to travel to Ithaca for all exchanges was unduly burdensome and remitted this specific issue to the Family Court for reconsideration of the exchange point.

RelocationChild CustodyBest Interests of the ChildParental RelocationVisitation RightsFamily Court Act Article 6Appellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationPro Se LitigantTompkins County
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rutland v. O'Brien

The father petitioned to modify a prior custody order, seeking sole legal custody of his children from the mother due to ongoing parental conflict and their inability to communicate effectively. The Family Court found joint custody unworkable, observing instances of both parents exhibiting poor behavior, including the mother denigrating the father and the father restricting communication between the children and the mother. Consequently, the Family Court granted the father sole legal custody while maintaining equal parenting time. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the Family Court's findings, despite a harmless error in admitting privileged testimony from the daughter's counselor.

Custody DisputeParental ConflictSole Legal CustodyJoint CustodyParenting ScheduleBest Interests of the ChildFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild TestimonyPrivileged Communication
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,040 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational