New York Expands Definition of ‘Parent’" /> New York Expands Definition of ‘Parent’" />
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the recent case of Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 N.Y.3d 1, 61 N.E.3d 488, 39 N.Y.S.2d 89 (2016), New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, held that, where it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing, as a parent, to maintain a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law (DRL) Section 70 seeking custody and visitation. In so holding the court, citing the overarching “best interests of the child” standard applicable in custody and visitation cases in New York State, expanded the definition of “parent” under DRL Section 70, and overruled its 25-year-old prior holding in Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651, 572 N.E.2d 27, 569 N.Y.S.2d 586 (1991). In Alison D., the court, citing the need to preserve the rights of biological parents to custody and control of a child, had held that a biological stranger to a child who is properly in the custody of his biological mother has no standing to seek visitation with the child pursuant to DRL Section 70.
By Matthew A. Feigin
This article is intended to help practitioners by warning of mistakes the author has seen matrimonial attorneys make in applying federal tax law.
By Laurence J. Cutler and Alyssa M. Clemente
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
According to the authors, using the holding of recent New Jersey Supreme Court case Bisbing v. Bisbing as a model, the clear and current trend throughout the United States that when a custodial parent is seeking to relocate outside of the state with a child, the best interest of the child standard should apply.
By David Bliven
This article addresses some deficiencies in reviewing separation or settlement agreements done in divorce cases, and recommends various clauses that practitioners may implement in their own practices.
Analysis of a case in which the Eighth Circuit reversed the confirmation by the Board of Immigration Appeals of a deportation order because the Immigration Judge’s finding of a fraudulent marriage was not based on proper evidence.