COVID-19 and Future Custody Determinations
Parental behavior today can affect judicial decisions in the future: A view from the Statewide Coordinating Judge for Matrimonial Cases
March 27, 2020 at 10:30 AM
4 minute read
At this time of an historic health emergency, strains could appear in an intact relationship, while in a fractured relationship those strains and disputes become problematic quickly.
It is difficult for lawyers to tell clients that barring an absolute emergency they cannot come to court to seek relief. It is difficult for lawyers and judges to fathom that while our Chief Judge has ensured that courts remain open for essential matters, their access to non-essential courtrooms, hearings and motions are severely impacted at least for the time being. Certainly, comprehensive discussions are ongoing by court leadership to provide methodologies for safe remote access during the emergency.
So, what do lawyers tell their clients? What should clients be doing? In many ways it might be helpful for attorneys and clients to know what really is in a judge's mind when determining custody and visitation disputes. To look at it from my eyes and not theirs.
One of the important things I think about in making a custody determination is if this is how this individual is behaving while a case is pending or about to commence, how will they behave when it is over? Simply put, when you behave a certain way and there is a judge in the equation, how will a parent behave when I am no longer involved in their lives? With parents who are not obeying court orders, or where no orders exist are engaging in "self-help", attorneys may and should remind them that the actions they take today and during this crisis could well be determinative or dipositive at the time of final decision by a judge. The concept is well embodied in New York case law. One of the factors a court must consider in determining custody is which parent is likely to provide access to the other parent.
Those who think that there is a lack of consequences to not conducting themselves appropriately during this crisis are wrong. Jurists agonize over many custody and parenting time decisions. It is one of the most difficult life-impacting decisions a jurist can make. Often the court is presented with two good people, each convinced that their approach is better, unable to compromise or feeling that compromise leads to a sign of weakness. Sometimes the dispute is really about money—not wanting to pay child support; wanting to control how the other party spends support and maintenance or just being convinced that they could do a better job than the other—and, unfortunately, sometimes it's a power imbalance or domestic violence that defined a relationship.
How they conduct themselves at parenting during a time of a pandemic crisis, one of which we have never before seen, will shape their relationship with each other as divorced parents in the future, the relationship they have with their children and most importantly the relationship that their children have with them. As adults we are all frightened over the events of the past few weeks and the uncertainty of the future. Through the eyes of a child, their world turned upside down—their school disrupted and social interactions with friends now almost impossible. One of the only things that should and can bring comfort to a child are parents cooperating. Not only is it the best interest of the child—the time-honored standard—it is the best interest in their divorce and their relationship to come. These events will have a lasting impact. For the last generation, it was the Great Depression and World War II; for my generation, it was the assassination of President Kennedy; for my children it was 9/11; and for the generation of children today, it is the events that now surround us. Let them have fond memories of how parents conducted themselves. If parents do not conduct themselves appropriately and sensibly, their children will remember throughout their lives how they acted and so will the judge deciding the case. I listen carefully and remember the children who have spoken to me during the hundreds of in-camera interviews I have done in the past 21 years. I hope over the next few years children will be telling me how positively their parents behaved to make sure they were safe, allowed access by technology if illness or the risks of travel prevented access, and that both of their parents put their differences aside and they did it for me.
If your clients are not listening to you and think they are not accountable for their conduct—might I suggest you send this to them.
Jeffrey Sunshine is a Justice of the Supreme Court and the Statewide Coordinating Judge for Matrimonial Cases.
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 AllTrade Secret Litigation: How Will AI Innovations Likely Be Litigated?
Standing on Less Shaky Ground: 'Guthrie' Decision Impact on NY Wage and Hour Matters
7 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