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

In re the Custody of Rebecca B.

In a child custody proceeding, the court unanimously affirmed orders from the Family Court, New York County. These orders denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, granted the Law Guardian's motion to quash subpoenas, and denied the respondent's motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court found that Lawyers for Children, Inc., as the child's Law Guardian, had standing to seek a change of custody. It also ruled that communications between the child and the Law Guardian, as well as a hired social worker, were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, justifying the quashing of subpoenas. Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the psychiatrist was properly denied due to a lack of proof of bias.

Child CustodyLaw Guardian StandingSubpoena QuashalAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrinePsychiatrist DisqualificationFamily Court OrdersAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionLegal Representation of Child
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Kemp v. Kemp

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County concerning the modification of a prior custody order for two sons. The parties, who divorced in 1999, initially had a separation agreement granting joint legal custody with the respondent having primary physical custody. However, due to the respondent's subsequent criminal convictions, probation violation, and incarceration in January 2002, the petitioner gained actual physical custody of the children. The Family Court subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody to the petitioner, citing several factors including the respondent's incarceration, lack of credibility, failure to address self-destructive behavior, and the stable home environment provided by the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding it to be based on a sound and substantial record, and rejected the respondent's contentions regarding joint custody and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Custody ModificationFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildParental FitnessChange in CircumstancesIncarcerationMental Health EvaluationCredibility AssessmentJoint CustodySole Custody
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1999

Yetter v. Jones

This case involves cross appeals from a Family Court order concerning child custody following the parties' 1995 divorce. Custody was initially awarded to the petitioner but later, after the petitioner's hospitalization, temporary custody shifted to the respondent. Both parties then petitioned for sole custody, leading the Family Court to award joint custody with the children's primary residence with the respondent. The Appellate Division reversed the joint custody award, determining that the parents' demonstrated bitterness and hostility made cooperative co-parenting impossible and thus joint custody an unworkable solution. Based on the petitioner's recurring mental health challenges, instances of poor judgment in relationships, and an unstable environment, contrasted with the respondent's more stable home life where the children were thriving, the court awarded sole custody to the respondent. The Appellate Division also affirmed the Family Court's discretion in not ordering home studies or additional psychological reports, given the available testimony and information.

custody disputejoint custody reversalsole custody awardparental mental healthchild welfarevisitation rightshostile co-parentsbest interests of childrenappellate reviewFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archer W. v. Commissioner of Social Services

This case involves an appeal by intervener foster parents from Family Court orders regarding child custody. The child, born in 1987, was placed with foster parents after the natural mother admitted to cocaine use. The natural father, Archer W., subsequently instituted custody proceedings and was granted a final custody order. The foster parents' motion to intervene and reargue custody was granted, but the Family Court again awarded custody to the natural father, finding no evidence of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the initial order and affirmed the final custody order from May 10, 1989. The court reiterated the principle that a natural parent has a superior claim to custody unless proved unfit or extraordinary circumstances exist, neither of which were demonstrated by the foster parents in this record.

Child CustodyFoster ParentsNatural FatherParental RightsUnfitnessAbandonmentNeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesBest Interests of ChildAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2003

Faunteleroy v. Mercado

The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 2, 2003, which transferred custody of her child to the father after a hearing. The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing the significant weight given to a hearing court's findings in custody cases, provided they are supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court reiterated that the paramount consideration in awarding custody is the child's best interests, necessitating a modification only if the totality of circumstances warrants such a change. Factors considered include the quality of home environment, parental guidance, emotional and intellectual development, financial stability, parental fitness, and the duration of the current custody arrangement. The hearing court properly weighed these factors, observing both parents, hearing testimony from various individuals including a social worker, and interviewing the child in camera, ultimately awarding custody to the father.

Child CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildCustody ModificationParental FitnessJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary HearingQueens CountyFamily Court Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1992

George W. S. v. Donna S.

This case involves a child custody dispute between a father and mother regarding their daughter, born in 1984. The Family Court initially granted the parties joint custody, with the child residing with the father on the condition that he live within a five-mile radius of the former marital residence, and denied the mother's application for sole custody. Both parents have a history of psychological issues and demonstrated significant antagonism towards each other. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's order, finding that joint custody was inappropriate given the parents' inability to cooperate. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for complete psychological evaluations of the parties and the child, and for a de novo hearing before a different judge.

child custodyfamily lawjoint custodypsychological evaluationparental antagonismmental healthappellate reviewremittaldomestic relationsmarital residence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1993

Manchester v. Whitbeck

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Fulton County, entered December 15, 1993, which granted the respondent's application for a modification of a prior custody and visitation order, awarding sole custody to the respondent. The appellate court reviewed the Family Court's findings, which alleged the petitioner's failure to provide for the child's minimal needs and demonstrated little parenting understanding. However, the appellate court found no support in the record for these findings, noting that some evidence was misinterpreted or explained by mediated agreements. It concluded that a change in custody was not warranted, as there was no indication it would substantially enhance the child’s welfare and the custodial parent was not shown to be unfit. Consequently, the order was modified by reversing the award of sole custody to the respondent and instead awarding sole custody to the petitioner, with liberal visitation to the respondent, and the matter was remitted to the Family Court to set an appropriate visitation schedule.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody ModificationBest Interest of the ChildParental FitnessJoint CustodyAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsFamily Court ActJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laici v. Baldwin

This case involves a custody dispute between a petitioner mother and respondent father concerning their two children, Jacob and Sarah. The couple separated in 1982, and custody was temporarily placed with the Department of Social Services in 1984. Petitioner sought sole custody in 1986, supported by social workers, a psychologist, and the Law Guardian who cited her efforts to improve her life and ability to meet the children's emotional needs. Conversely, the respondent father largely remained unemployed and refused psychological testing. The court initially awarded custody to the respondent, emphasizing his current wife's stable living arrangement. The dissenting judges argue this decision erroneously prioritized the father's *derived* stability over the mother's demonstrated efforts and capacity for the children's emotional development, advocating for a reversal and award of custody to the petitioner mother based on overwhelming expert testimony.

custody disputeparental rightschild welfarebest interests of the childdissenting opinionfamily lawpsychological evaluationparental stabilitydomestic abuseappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chery v. Richardson

The father appealed the Family Court's denial of his petition to modify a 2004 custody order, seeking sole custody of his daughter. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that there was no sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification. The court noted that while the mother had prior parenting lapses, these issues, including hygiene and school attendance, had been ameliorated. The decision also considered the child's primary bond with her mother and half-siblings, the social worker's testimony, and the child's and her attorney's preference for custody to remain with the mother. Joint custody was deemed unfeasible due to the parents' inability to communicate.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildChange in CircumstancesParental FitnessChild PreferenceSibling RelationshipsFamily Court AppealAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norwood v. Capone

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Otsego County Family Court which modified a prior custody order. The petitioner and respondent, divorced parents of two sons with special needs, Christopher and Anthony, were initially granted joint custody with physical custody to the respondent. The petitioner sought to modify this arrangement due to concerns about the respondent's care for the children, particularly regarding Anthony's behavioral issues and alleged physical violence by the respondent. A family offense petition was also filed. The Family Court transferred physical custody to the petitioner and allowed the children to relocate to Kentucky, while maintaining joint custody. The family offense petition was dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the change in circumstances and the children's best interests supported the modification, particularly for Anthony, as Christopher had aged out of Family Court jurisdiction. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's assessment of parental fitness and the decision to allow relocation.

Custody ModificationFamily OffenseChild CustodySpecial Needs ChildrenRelocationParental FitnessBest Interests of the ChildDomestic ViolenceTemporary Order of ProtectionFamily Court Appeal
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 473 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