Case Law Regarding Role of Child Is Clear
We believe that the case law is clear regarding the role of the child and his or her attorney in custody and visitation proceedings.
July 16, 2019 at 09:54 AM
2 minute read
We at The Children's Law Center (CLC) strongly disagree with Joel Brandes's assertion in his recent article “What is the Status of the Child in a Custody Case?” (NYLJ, July 8, 2019) that the departments of the Appellate Division have ruled inconsistently with regard to the child's standing and status in custody and visitation cases. As the first public interest law firm in New York City dedicated to the representation of children in custody, guardianship, and visitation matters, and as the attorneys who filed and prosecuted, on behalf of our child-client, the appeal in Matter of Newton v. McFarlane, we believe that the case law is clear regarding the role of the child and his or her attorney in custody and visitation proceedings.
While we take no issue with the author's summaries of the relevant case law, we also find no disunity in the Departments' holdings. In fact, we believe that McFarlane, with its thorough analysis, articulates the settled principle of New York state law, that once an attorney for the child (AFC) is appointed, that AFC has the right to participate fully in all aspects of a case, including by filing motions seeking changes in custody or visitation, and also has standing to file an appeal. In the cases that Mr. Brandes cites, the Fourth Department did not rule otherwise, as it never disputed that the AFC had standing to file and pursue an appeal on behalf of the child. Rather, the court's unwillingness to decide in the children's favor hinged on the litigants' lack of cooperation with the children's desired outcomes.
An also unambiguous, if not more important, take-away from the court's decision in McFarlane is the significance of the child's position in custody and visitation proceedings. Unlike in most other types of litigation, the subject of a custody or visitation case is a young person, on whom a court's decision will have a substantial impact, perhaps even more than on the litigants. The Appellate Division's four departments undoubtedly have agreed that the voice of that child deserves to be heard.
Karen Simmons, Executive Director Janet Neustaetter, Supervising Attorney, Appeals and Writing Unit Louise Feld, Writing and Policy Attorney The Children's Law Center
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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