Decisions of Interest

'Intimate Relationship' Gives Family Court Jurisdiction over Birth Mother

In a case involving a birth mother who allegedly went too far in trying to get her children back from their adoptive mother, Nassau Family Court Judge Julianne S. Eisman determined that Family Court had jurisdiction over the birth mother because her threatening actions constituted a “family offense.” M.F. v. K.G. (Family Court, Nassau Cty. 4/1/10) (Eisman, J.).

M.F., the adoptive mother of three of K.G.'s biological sons, obtained a temporary order of protection from Family Court after she allegedly received several threatening letters from the respondent, K.G. The letters said things like, “Please return my sons or death certificates or crematory certificates,” and “Transfer the CAREBEARS to me, in Heaven or on earth.” The petitioner also alleged the respondent might have followed the children and taken pictures of them. The respondent sought to vacate the order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because, as she and M.F. were not family members, her actions could not be termed a “family offense.”

Family Courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, are permitted to exercise only those powers specifically granted by statute. Pursuant to Family Court Act ' 812(1), Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to criminal acts occurring “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household.” The legislature expanded the definition of “members of the same family or household” in 2008 to include those who have been in an “intimate relationship.” In this case of first impression, the court held that adoptive and biological parents have such a relationship. Stated the court, “The nexus created between the [two women] and between each of them and the children they have both been mothers to, albeit at different times, results in a relationship that is greater than a casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization, and as such qualifies as an intimate relationship.” Thus, Family Court could properly exercise jurisdiction over the biological mother and issue a temporary order of protection.

Photo Albums Are the Only Bone of Contention

Family Court, Nassau County, recently found itself compelled to decide which of two divorcing parties spent more effort on creating several family photo albums, and who cared more for them, before setting up a detailed method for dividing their contents between the parties. M.R. v. E.R., Slip Copy, 27 Misc.3d 1206(A) (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.4/9/10) (DeStefano, J.).

The parties, who had been married just over a decade at the time they entered into a stipulation of settlement in July 2009 in anticipation of divorce, were unable to agree on one thing: Who would get ownership of the family's photo albums? Each party moved for an order directing that he or she be awarded the albums. (Prior to a hearing on the issue the parties attempted to settle the matter by agreeing to share the cost of scanning the photos onto discs, which the wife would then keep in lieu of the albums, but the quality of the scanned photos was not as high as that of the originals.) The court held a hearing, at which it found that the husband was intricately involved with taking, compiling and cataloging the thousands of photos at issue, while the wife's contribution to the collection was much less extensive. And while the court found the photographs admitted into evidence on disc and in photo albums to be roughly comparable in quality, it did find that there were some quality issues with certain of the copied photos. Taking all of this information into consideration, the court awarded the Wife 25% of the original photos and the husband 75%, with the specific designation of which 25% should go to the wife to be left to the parties to agree upon. If they could not reach such an agreement, however, the court ordered the splitting of the contents of the albums to be conducted as follows: “[S]tarting with the first album, the Wife shall, counting from the first page thereof, be entitled to receive every fourth original photograph in that album until reaching the end of the album. Selection shall continue in like manner, with the Wife taking the fourth original photograph of each successive album, starting from the first page thereof, and continuing until reaching the end of each album. To achieve this distribution, the Husband, who is presently in possession of the albums, shall not delete, remove, transfer or change the order of any photographs in/from the albums and shall produce all albums simultaneously on the date that selection is to take place.” The court also ordered that each party or his/her representative be present during such distribution, and that if they were unable to agree on a time or place for the transaction, the selection process would take place in June, at the courthouse.

Dutch Law Applies to Pre-Nup Signed in The Netherlands

Because the parties were married in The Netherlands and entered into a prenuptial agreement there, the court determined that Dutch law, not New York law, should be used to interpret the agreement's validity and enforceability, despite the fact that the parties were New York residents before their marriage and throughout its duration. Crowther v. Crowther, Copy, 27 Misc.3d 1211(A) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 4/6/10) (Thomas, J.).

The plaintiff, a Dutch citizen, and the defendant, a UK citizen, were married at the Dutch Embassy in Ghana. Before their marriage ceremony and throughout their marriage the parties resided together in New York. In 2000, the parties' agents, both of whom worked in The Netherlands, allegedly signed a pre-nuptial agreement there on the parties' behalf. In this action, the plaintiff alleged that New York law should apply to determine the agreement's validity and enforceability.

Citing the Hague Convention, the court held that Dutch law was expressly designated by the parties. The court added that the convention requires that both the marriage contract and the designation of the applicable law comply with the internal law applicable to the place where the marriage contract was made. In making the decision to apply Dutch law, the court also took into account the fact that the plaintiff was a Dutch citizen, the parties were married in a Dutch civil ceremony at the embassy in Ghana, and the prenuptial agreement was drafted by a Dutch lawyer in the Netherlands and executed by the parties' agents there.

'Intimate Relationship' Gives Family Court Jurisdiction over Birth Mother

In a case involving a birth mother who allegedly went too far in trying to get her children back from their adoptive mother, Nassau Family Court Judge Julianne S. Eisman determined that Family Court had jurisdiction over the birth mother because her threatening actions constituted a “family offense.” M.F. v. K.G. (Family Court, Nassau Cty. 4/1/10) (Eisman, J.).

M.F., the adoptive mother of three of K.G.'s biological sons, obtained a temporary order of protection from Family Court after she allegedly received several threatening letters from the respondent, K.G. The letters said things like, “Please return my sons or death certificates or crematory certificates,” and “Transfer the CAREBEARS to me, in Heaven or on earth.” The petitioner also alleged the respondent might have followed the children and taken pictures of them. The respondent sought to vacate the order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because, as she and M.F. were not family members, her actions could not be termed a “family offense.”

Family Courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, are permitted to exercise only those powers specifically granted by statute. Pursuant to Family Court Act ' 812(1), Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to criminal acts occurring “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household.” The legislature expanded the definition of “members of the same family or household” in 2008 to include those who have been in an “intimate relationship.” In this case of first impression, the court held that adoptive and biological parents have such a relationship. Stated the court, “The nexus created between the [two women] and between each of them and the children they have both been mothers to, albeit at different times, results in a relationship that is greater than a casual acquaintance or ordinary fraternization, and as such qualifies as an intimate relationship.” Thus, Family Court could properly exercise jurisdiction over the biological mother and issue a temporary order of protection.

Photo Albums Are the Only Bone of Contention

Family Court, Nassau County, recently found itself compelled to decide which of two divorcing parties spent more effort on creating several family photo albums, and who cared more for them, before setting up a detailed method for dividing their contents between the parties. M.R. v. E.R. , Slip Copy, 27 Misc.3d 1206(A) (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.4/9/10) (DeStefano, J.).

The parties, who had been married just over a decade at the time they entered into a stipulation of settlement in July 2009 in anticipation of divorce, were unable to agree on one thing: Who would get ownership of the family's photo albums? Each party moved for an order directing that he or she be awarded the albums. (Prior to a hearing on the issue the parties attempted to settle the matter by agreeing to share the cost of scanning the photos onto discs, which the wife would then keep in lieu of the albums, but the quality of the scanned photos was not as high as that of the originals.) The court held a hearing, at which it found that the husband was intricately involved with taking, compiling and cataloging the thousands of photos at issue, while the wife's contribution to the collection was much less extensive. And while the court found the photographs admitted into evidence on disc and in photo albums to be roughly comparable in quality, it did find that there were some quality issues with certain of the copied photos. Taking all of this information into consideration, the court awarded the Wife 25% of the original photos and the husband 75%, with the specific designation of which 25% should go to the wife to be left to the parties to agree upon. If they could not reach such an agreement, however, the court ordered the splitting of the contents of the albums to be conducted as follows: “[S]tarting with the first album, the Wife shall, counting from the first page thereof, be entitled to receive every fourth original photograph in that album until reaching the end of the album. Selection shall continue in like manner, with the Wife taking the fourth original photograph of each successive album, starting from the first page thereof, and continuing until reaching the end of each album. To achieve this distribution, the Husband, who is presently in possession of the albums, shall not delete, remove, transfer or change the order of any photographs in/from the albums and shall produce all albums simultaneously on the date that selection is to take place.” The court also ordered that each party or his/her representative be present during such distribution, and that if they were unable to agree on a time or place for the transaction, the selection process would take place in June, at the courthouse.

Dutch Law Applies to Pre-Nup Signed in The Netherlands

Because the parties were married in The Netherlands and entered into a prenuptial agreement there, the court determined that Dutch law, not New York law, should be used to interpret the agreement's validity and enforceability, despite the fact that the parties were New York residents before their marriage and throughout its duration. Crowther v. Crowther , Copy, 27 Misc.3d 1211(A) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty. 4/6/10) (Thomas, J.).

The plaintiff, a Dutch citizen, and the defendant, a UK citizen, were married at the Dutch Embassy in Ghana. Before their marriage ceremony and throughout their marriage the parties resided together in New York. In 2000, the parties' agents, both of whom worked in The Netherlands, allegedly signed a pre-nuptial agreement there on the parties' behalf. In this action, the plaintiff alleged that New York law should apply to determine the agreement's validity and enforceability.

Citing the Hague Convention, the court held that Dutch law was expressly designated by the parties. The court added that the convention requires that both the marriage contract and the designation of the applicable law comply with the internal law applicable to the place where the marriage contract was made. In making the decision to apply Dutch law, the court also took into account the fact that the plaintiff was a Dutch citizen, the parties were married in a Dutch civil ceremony at the embassy in Ghana, and the prenuptial agreement was drafted by a Dutch lawyer in the Netherlands and executed by the parties' agents there.