Appeals Court Tackles Issue of Best Environment for Biracial Child in Rejecting Mother's Requested School Switch
“A multicultural environment 'properly [is considered] to be very important for a biracial child,'” wrote the Appellate Division, Second Department panel. “Here, however, the mother's contention" the a particular school switch is needed "is not supported by the evidence."
April 05, 2019 at 01:17 PM
4 minute read
Citing case law that says a multicultural environment is very important for a biracial child, a state appeals court has nevertheless rejected a mother's divorce case attempt to have her child change schools, writing that she'd failed to show evidence that the particular school switch requested would improve the child's well-being.
“A multicultural environment 'properly [is considered] to be very important for a biracial child,'” wrote the unanimous Appellate Division, Second Department panel, while quoting Matter of Cisse v. Graham in its opinion.
“Here, however,” the panel said, “the mother's contention that the child's intellectual and emotional well-being as a biracial child requires moving the child from the Port Washington [in Nassau County] school district to UNIS [the United Nations International School in Manhattan] is not supported by the evidence.”
Addressing on appeal the mother's motion for permission to enroll the child at UNIS, the panel also wrote that “no evidence was presented that the child had been denied his biracial identity in the Port Washington school district, or that his status as a biracial child in that school district had hindered his academic or personal development.”
The panel's decision, issued in a divorce-and-ancillary-relief action captioned Walter Verfenstein v. Xi Verfenstein, affirmed Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Hope Schwartz Zimmerman's 2017 decision denying the mother's motion.
The panel of Justices Reinaldo Rivera, Cheryl Chambers, Jeffrey Cohen and Betsy Barros explained that Walter Verfenstein and Xi Verfenstein, a biracial couple, had married in 2007 and two years later had a child.
In 2010 they separated, and later, when the child started kindergarten, they agreed that the child would attend a public school near Walter Verfenstein's Port Washington home, the justices said.
Then in 2016, Walter Verfenstein brought a legal action for divorce and ancillary relief, the justices added. And by August of that year, Xi Verfenstein moved for permission to enroll the child in the United Nations International School.
Xi Verfenstein had contended that “the child's educational and emotional well-being … would be better suited by being in an ethnically and cultural diverse academic environment,” the justices noted.
Subsequently, Supreme Court Justice Zimmerman ordered a hearing on Xi Verfenstein's motion, as well as a forensic examination of the child. Moreover, her court conducted an in-camera interview of the child (who was not named in the panel's appellate decision).
In analyzing the appeal of Zimmerman's denial of Xi Verfenstein's motion, the justices pointed out that “the court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine … what is in the best interests of the child.” They also noted that the discretion of the lower court, which assesses witnesses before it, “will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record,” citing Matter of Supangkat v. Torres and Matter of Reyes v. Polanco.
In knocking back Xi Verfenstein's request for the school change, the justices wrote in part that “while the mother testified that she had looked into the diversity of the student body population in the Port Washington school district, she conceded that she did not know the percentage of biracial children attending UNIS.”
They further noted, in their opinion issued Wednesday, the concession that Xi Verfenstein had “'no issues' with the Port Washington school district, and that the child had excelled academically at his current school.”
Lloyd Rosen and Christine Settineri, associates at Wisselman, Harounian & Associates in Nassau County, represented Walter Verfenstein. Rosen said in an email he was pleased with the ruling, adding, “While we share the opinion that the child's needs pertaining to racial and cultural identity deserve consideration, there was no evidence presented in this case that the best interests of the child warranted relocating him to Manhattan. In fact, the evidence showed that the child was doing very well, socially, emotionally and academically while residing with his father and attending the Port Washington schools.”
Susan Bereche, an attorney with the Law Office of Steven Cohn in Nassau County, was listed in the opinion as representing Xi Verfenstein on the appeal. She could not be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Issue of First Impression’: New York Judge Clears Coinbase Appeal Amid Crypto Regulatory Clash
4 minute readMeet the Long Island Judge Tapped to Be US Attorney for Eastern District of New York
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250