Matter of Joseph M. v Janice A.
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 11, 2017
Family Court, Erie County
In the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act Joseph M., Petitioner
against
Janice A., Respondent. In the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act JANICE A., Petitioner JOSEPH M., Respondent.
In the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act JANICE A., Petitioner v
against
JOSEPH M., Respondent.
V-02632-17
CATHARINE MARIE VENZON, ESQ.
Attorney for Father, JOSEPH M.
CARL B. KUSTELL, ESQ.
KATHRYN M. EASTMAN, ESQ.
Attorney for Mother, JANICE A.
WILLIAM RONALD HITES, ESQ.
Attorney for the Child, MILA
Mary G. Carney, J.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Before the Court are two (2) competing petitions seeking to establish custody of the parties' daughter, Mila (2) (hereinafter referred to as "Mila"). Joseph M. (hereinafter referred to as "Father") originally filed a "petition for visitation" against Janice A. (hereinafter referred to as "Mother") in or around July 2016. This petition was later withdrawn and replaced by his pending petition seeking custody filed in or around February 2017. Mother filed her pending petition seeking custody in or around March 2017. Each parent seeks primary or sole decision-making authority.
Testimony was heard on April 13, 2017, July 27, 2017, August 23, 2017, September 19, 2017 and November 6, 2017.In addition to Mother and Father, the Court heard from several other witnesses, including: Daniel M. (Mila's Paternal Grandfather); JoAnn M. (Mila's Paternal Grandmother); Dr. Kenneth N. Condrell (Mother's expert witness); and Deanna A. (Mila's Maternal Grandmother). Counsel submitted written summations on or about November 28, 2017.
This court has had the unique opportunity to evaluate and observe the demeanor, temperament and sincerity of the witnesses and weigh their respective credibility. This court has further considered the petitions filed by the parties as well as the seventeen (17) exhibits received in evidence together with the applicable statutory and case law and now makes the following material findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties met when working together at the American Legion Post in or around 2012. Father was employed there as a bartender and Mother a waitress/bartender. In or around February 2015, Mother advised Father she was pregnant with Mila. Father testified that he participated in the pregnancy by attending pre-natal appointments with Mother as well as a birthing class and was present at Mila's birth. Mila was born in September 2015.
Father testified that although he was not satisfied with the amount of parenting time he was "allowed" by Mother, they generally operated without conflict during Mila's early months. Mila's pediatrician records (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) demonstrate that Mother and Father attended most doctor appointments together until Mila was approximately 9 months old; thereafter, Father did not attend again until a 17-month sick visit. Father testified that Mother "stopped telling him" when Mila's medical appointments were.
Father testified to a course of conduct by Mother in dictating how much parenting time he would be allotted with Mila that became more restrictive by July 2016. According to both parties [*2]Father made a comment to Mother (when Mila was approximately 9 months old) that he would allow Mila to call his girlfriend 'mom'. Subsequently, Mother would not permit Father to have any access with Mila outside of her supervision.
On or about July 11, 2016 Father sent a letter to Mother (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) asking that she "reinstate contact" between he and Mila, or he would "resort to legal action." Father filed his original petition seeking parenting time on or about July 20, 2016 alleging"[Mother] stopped letting me see the baby completely."
In response to Father's original petition the court issued a temporary order on or about July 27, 2016 (Petitioner's Exhibit 10) granting Father access every Monday through Friday from 9:50am to 2:10pm and additional times as agreed and arranged. Although the intention was for this order to remain in place for just a few weeks, it unfortunately remained active (due to calendar adjournments) until the trial commenced in April 2017.
The order itself was problematic and created conflict between the parties. Father testified that Mother did not allow him any reasonable additional time under this arrangement, including for holidays or Mila's birthday. On or about April 13, 2017, the court issued a modified temporary order on consent of the parties (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) that granted each parent equal access and joint decision making.
Both parties were ordered by the court to complete substance abuse evaluations. Mother completed her evaluation successfully in or around September 2016 as demonstrated by Petitioner's Exhibit 3 in evidence, no treatment was recommended. Respondent's Exhibit A and Petitioner's Exhibit 4 document Father's evaluation and completed substance abuse treatment. He was diagnosed with a cannabis, tobacco and alcohol use disorders in or around August 2016. As part of his treatment, Father was directed to abstain from all substances and attend individual and group therapy sessions. The records show that Father struggled initially with treatment, but eventually made great progress leading to successful completion in or around November 2016.
Witness, Father
Father is 27 years old and employed full time at the Animal Supply Company, working Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He did not testify to his income. He has a high school diploma and "some college", but no formal degree. His resides in Angola, New York in a rented apartment situated nearby to his parents' home.
Father presents as calm, reasonable and honest. The court found both Father to be a generally reliable and credible witness. His credibility was slightly strained by his defensiveness regarding his substance evaluation and subsequent treatment.
Father testified competently and lovingly about Mila and offered two (2) photo albums/scrapbooks documenting her life thus far (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8). The bulk of his [*3]testimony centered on his struggle to communicate with Mother effectively and obtain adequate parenting time with Mila. Upon cross examination by Mother's attorney, Father was asked what could be done to improve their co-parenting relationship. He succinctly responded, "I think she needs to give me more respect as a father." Petitioner's Exhibit 12 in evidence is a Father's Day card Mother gave him this year. While Father testified that he was pleased by the gesture, he pointed out (appropriately) that the card appears to be something one would give a step-father.
Other than general complaints regarding Mother's dismissiveness towards him and their generally poor communication, Father did not comment negatively on Mother's parenting ability. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is a binder of text messages and missed calls that corroborated Father's allegations regarding the parties' poor communication and Mother's sometimes poor judgment. Father offered no complaints regarding the current custodial and parenting time arrangement.
Witnesses, Daniel and JoAnn M.
Daniel M. and JoAnn M. testified in support of Father's petition. They are Mila's paternal grandparents. Both Mr. and Mrs. M. were found to be reliable and credible witnesses. They each testified to being excited for Mila's birth, preparing a special nursery for her in their home and participating in planning the baby shower. Both testified to their disappointment in not being permitted to spend much time with Mila until the court's April 2017 temporary order. They testified that they are very pleased now that Mila can spend regular time in their home where she has her own bedroom. Mr. M. described Father as being a very caring, loving attentive and protective parent.
Witness, Mother
Mother is 33 years old and employed part time as a substitute bus driver, working a split shift Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. She testified that she earns $16.25 per hour. She did not testify as to her educational background. She resides in Angola, New York in a three (3) bedroom home that she owns. She admitted that her parents assisted her with its purchase and that she needs their financial assistance presently to remain there. Photographs of Mother's residence (Respondent's Exhibit B) depict nice, appropriate accommodations for Mila.
Mother presents as somewhat defensive, unreasoning and emotional. At least two (2) recesses had to be taken for Mother to compose herself — once when she was not even yet on the witness stand. While she was found to be moderately credible, she was not as reliable as Father. Her credibility was strained by her lack of insight, disrespect for Father (which was evident in the content and tone of her testimony) and her tendency to answer non-responsively and evasively.
Mother insisted her home was "superior" to Father's despite admitting on cross examination by the Attorney for Mila that she has spent the night at Father's several times and found his accommodations acceptable. Her reasoning was that Father's home "does not have a backyard and is literally five (5) feet from the road." Mother further insisted that her residence was Mila's "home," but could not bring herself to admit that she had a home with her Father too. In fact, when asked if Father's home is also Mila's home she responded, "I don't know."
Though Mother was aware Father successfully completed treatment for marijuana and alcohol use, she maintained that his use of alcohol and marijuana remained a concern for her. Nevertheless, she could not point to any indicia or observation that would lead her to believe he was [*4]still using either substance. In fact, she admitted that she has made no observations that would lead her to believe that Father has an ongoing problem. Still, she held fast to the refrain that "he has a drug and alcohol problem."
Mother completed the Catholic Charities Our Kids Parent Education Program as suggested by the court. Evidence of her completion was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits C & D. Despite completing this program, she seemed to lack insight into her own shortcomings as a co-parent. She reluctantly admitted that she denied Father access to Mila when "he told [her] that [her] daughter was gonna call his girlfriend 'mom'." When the Attorney for Mila asked her if we were finally past that insensitive comment he made over a year ago now, she maintained "it could still happen."
Of most concern to the court was Mother's proposed parenting time arrangement for Father and Mila. Though they are currently sharing time equally, Mother proposed Father's parenting time should be reduced significantly to two (2) overnights per month and four (4) hours per week. Mother maintained that this was reasonable and sufficient parenting time.
When asked what was wrong with the current parenting time arrangement, Mother had difficulty pointing out any specific flaws with sufficient credibility. She made conclusory allegations on direct examination such as Mila is "clingy" and "acts like she does not want to go." Upon cross examination, Mother admitted that she asks Mila (who is 2 years old) if she has a good time when she is with Father and that she has never responded "no." When asked specifically if she had any reason to believe she did not have a good time she answered, "I don't know."
Witnesses, Dr. Kenneth N. Condrell & Deanna A.
Dr. Kenneth N. Condrell testified as Mother's expert witness in this matter. Deanna A. is Mila's maternal grandmother. While the court found both witnesses to be credible, neither offered any real practical testimony in support of Mother's custody application.
Mrs. A.'s testimony was simply bolstering. She testified that she resides nearby to Mother and provides care for Mila when Mother is working. She believes Mother is a strong parent who "spends all her time with Mila" and offered a less flattering opinion of Father, although she has little to no contact with him.
Dr. Condrell acknowledged that he never met either parent or Mila and conducted no testing or evaluation of the family.He offered no particular opinions regarding the instant matter. He offered his expert opinion that bonding and attachment are important to babies; testifying that when a baby is born, her first job is to fall in love with both parents which occurs with frequent connections and time with each of them. He further testified that when one parent is less willing to share parenting time, a parent coordinator would be a useful tool for the court to use to lessen conflict. Ultimately, he stated that a joint custodial relationship with equal access is the "unspeakable law of the land."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In making an initial custody determination, the overriding priority is the best interests of the child. Lynch v. Gillogly, 82 AD3d 1529 (3rd Dept. 2011). In determining the child's best interest, the factors to be considered include: (1) quality of the home environment and parental guidance each parent provides the child; (2) financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child; (3) ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development; (4) demonstrated parenting ability and demonstrated fitness of the parties; (5) the love, affection, and nurturing given by each party to the child, the emotional bond between the child and each party, and [*5]the willingness and ability of each party to put the child's needs ahead of his/her own; (6) willingness and ability of each party to facilitate and encourage a close and optimum relationship between the child and the other party; (7) the individual needs of the child or the desires and preferences of a child; (8) any other factors deemed relevant to a particular custody dispute; e.g., domestic violence and its impact on the child. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 (1982).
The Honorable Matthew F. Cooper, Supreme Court, New York County, in J.R. v. M.S., 55 N.Y.S. 3d 873 (NY Sup. Ct. 2017) recently set forth a compelling, historical analysis of how courts have determined the issue of decision making when faced with custodial disputes. The Court of Appeals in 1978, established the standard that joint custody should be reserved "for relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in mature civilized fashion," making it the rare exception rather than the rule when embattled parents find themselves at the conclusion of a trial. Braiman v. Braiman, 44 NY2d 584 (1978)
As Justice Cooper appropriately opined, times have changed in the past forty years — citing that many states have begun to codify the presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of the child. Furthermore, even New York courts are beginning to steer away from the Braiman presumption. J.R. v. M.S. (supra); citing Tatum v. Simmons, 133 AD3d at 551, (1st Dept. 2015) (an award of "shared legal custody" appropriate despite evidence of hostility and strife between the parties); Johanys M. v. Eddy A., 115 AD3d 460, (1st Dept. 2014) (joint custody reinstated although parents were unable to communicate directly with each other); Batista v. Falcon, 148 AD3d 698 (2nd Dept. 2017) (joint custody awarded despite being in Integrated Domestic Violence Part).
In determining that even parents who may not present as amicable could appropriately share joint legal and physical custody and decision-making responsibilities, Justice Cooper concluded that "[ ] even in a situation where hostility and poor-communication abound, courts, when called upon to designate legal custody, should opt, if at all possible, for designating both parents joint custodial parents, rather than making one the custodial and the other the non-custodial parent. [ ] To designate [one] [ ] a non-custodial parent would, in effect, label [that parent] — to the child and the rest of the world—as being somehow defective and inferior to the [other]."
In the instant matter, this court finds that based on the totality of the circumstances, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of a joint shared custodial arrangement with equal parenting time to each parent — with some conditions as set forth in the decision below — to be the most appropriate resolution in support of Mila's best interests.
In this case, there was credible evidence that the parties had a basically functional relationship until Father entered a relationship with a new woman. He made a single, imprudent comment (that he would have Mila call his girlfriend 'mom') which sparked an explosive overreaction by Mother. Even though Father was actively drinking and using marijuana at that time, Mother testified that it was this comment that caused her to decide that his access must be supervised by her.
Since then, Father completed a course of treatment and Mother has not made a single observation that he has relapsed. Yet, the parties seem to have made very little progress in restoring harmony to their once functional relationship. This seems somewhat based on their litigious efforts to be perceived as better than the other, mutual lack of maturity and fundamental lack of trust in one another — all obstacles this court believes the parties can overcome with some professional help.
Neither party presents to the court as perfect in this matter. Father's weakness lies in history of substance abuse issues, and Mother's weakness lies in her profound lack of insight as a co-parent. While Father appeared to the court to have overcome his substance issues through treatment, he remained defensive and self-justifying when acknowledging this issue. On the other hand, even after completing a parent education program, Mother remains rigid and hypercritical of Father. And thus they stand before the court, shoulder to shoulder, equal in their strengths and weaknesses — perfectly imperfect.
There was no testimony that demonstrated either parent's parenting ability or fitness was superior to the others. Both parties demonstrated a solid knowledge of Mila's developmental and emotional needs. It was undisputed that both parents nurture Mila and offer competent parental guidance in furtherance of her emotional and intellectual development.
There was no evidence presented to show that either parent was unfit, or even less fit than the other in terms of their parenting ability. Although Mother was highly critical of Father, she offered no credible proof to substantiate her claim that Father is inferior to her. None of these factors weighed more heavily in either parent's favor.
With respect to the quality of each parent's home environment, there was no credible evidence to support Mother's allegation that her home was "superior" to Father's. In fact, there was nothing before the court to conclude that the quality of either parent's home surpassed the other. Although Father's home is a rental, he is able to support his residence on his own income. While Mother owns her own home, she testified that she could not afford to without the assistance of her parents. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence concerning the quality of the parties' home environment did not really weigh more heavily in favor of either party.
Mother's decision to restrict Father's access even after the court's original temporary order (Petitioner's Exhibit 10) seriously called into question her ability to put Mila's needs ahead of her own. Mother admitted that she does not consider Father's residence Mila's home and testified that her prospective parenting plan would be to diminish Mila's access with Father. On the other hand, Father's history of substance abuse seriously called into question his ability to put Mila's needs ahead of his own. This factor did not weigh more heavily in either parent's favor.
The only factor that weighed more heavily in favor of Father was his ability to encourage an optimum relationship between Mila and Mother. Father respects Mother and supports Mila's relationship with her. In contrast, it seemed as though Mother considered Father more of an afterthought or an annoyance than an equal parent. Her prospective parenting plan sought to diminish Mila's time with Father for no apparent rational basis.
With respect to each party's financial status and ability to provide for Mila, there was not enough evidence to support a clear difference. Father did not offer proof of income, although he testified that he works full time. Mother did not offer proof of income (other than her testimony), and testified that she only works part time. Without further corroboration, this factor cannot weigh more heavily in either parent's favor.
Both parties demonstrated appropriate and equal love and affection for Mila. There was no proof that either party has a superior emotional bond or provides her more nurturing. This factor did not weigh more heavily in either parent's favor.
As a final factor to consider, the Attorney for Mila advocated in favor of awarding a joint shared parenting time and custodial arrangement to support Mila's emotional well-being. Because of Mila's tender age, she lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment; [*6]therefore, the attorney for the child is authorized to substitute his own judgement on her behalf. Mason v. Mason, 103 AD3d 1207 (4th Dept. 2013) Again, as with all the other factors, the child's position has not been considered determinative. In weighing this factor, the court considered the age and maturity of the child.
DECISION
The court after a review of all the evidence and being in a position to observe the demeanor and credibility of the parents finds that, in the totality of the circumstances, the best interests of Mila are served by granting the parties joint legal and physical custody of Mila with equal decision-making authority and an equal, shared parenting arrangement.
Both parties presented as equally flawed and good, as well as caring and loving parents to Mila. Neither party stands out as more suited to be Mila's primary custodial parent. Each party presented with weaknesses that inhibit such a designation; furthermore, to place either parent in the role of "primary" would only continue their unnecessary power struggle.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the sex offender registry and the Family Court's child protective records, and having notified the parties and attorney for the child of the results of these searches; and the Court having considered and relied upon the results of these searches in making this decision it is hereby:
ORDERED that Mother's Petition for Custody (V-04376-17) is hereby denied in its entirety and dismissed with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Father's Petition for Custody (V-02632-17) is hereby granted as follows:
Father and Mother shall enjoy joint legal and physical custody of their daughter, Mila.
Father and Mother shall share equal and joint decision-making authority with respect to all decisions concerning Mila's health, education and welfare. Neither party may endeavor to enroll Mila with any new providers (i.e. daycare, pre-k, school, doctor, dentist, specialist or activity) without the express, written consent of the other parent after full, meaningful and documented consultation.
As a component this custodial relationship, both parties shall immediately enroll in an on-line co-parenting class at https://www.onlineparentingprograms.com . Specifically, the 8 Hour Online 8 Hour Online class, Parenting Without Conflict by New Ways for Families ($99.99). Both parties must submit proof of completion of this course to the Attorney for the Child on or before February 1, 2018.
The court hereby continues the Attorney for the Child's appointment for a period of six (6) [*7]months from the date of this decision to remain available to Mother and Father during their transition to this final custodial arrangement. Failure of the parties to submit proof of their completed on-line class on or before February 1, 2018 shall constitute sufficient basis for the Attorney for the child to restore this matter to the court's calendar on notice to the Parent Coordinator as set forth below.
If the services of a Parent Coordinator become necessary (i.e. - in the event that either parent fails to complete co-parent education or should they meet with disagreement on health, educational or welfare decisions for Mila) they shall employ the services of Deborah J. Scinta, Esq. (716) 508-0066; djs@scintaesq.com, as Parent Coordinator whose fees shall be paid for equally by the parties.
Both parties shall have equal and independent access to all of Mila's educational and medical records and providers. Each shall have an affirmative, ongoing obligation to keep the other apprised with current contact information for all of Mila's educational, medical and extracurricular providers so that each may exercise his/her rights of independent and equal access. This obligation is ongoing should providers change.
Both parties shall have a continuing obligation to keep the other informed of his or her current contact information at all times including physical address, telephone numbers and email addresses.
The parties shall adhere to the following conditions of parenting time at all times:
There shall be no disparaging remarks or discussion of these proceedings made in the presence of Mila by either party, nor shall they permit any 3rd parties to do so.
Each parent shall have the right to communicate privately with Mila when she is in the other parent's care via telephone, text or any other electronic means (i.e. facetime or skype). Said communication shall be reasonable (defined as no more than one (1) time per day) and as the parties agree and arrange.
All holiday access supersedes regular and vacation access. (i.e. — A vacationing parent [*8]cannot choose the week of 4th of July if it is not his or her holiday).
Each party is required to advise the other parent of his or her intention to travel with Mila no less than thirty (30) days in advance of a scheduled trip. Notice shall include itinerary of travel — including copies of airline tickets depicting carrier, flight numbers and times of departure and arrival. Additional information shall also be provided i.e. — destination, itinerary of travel if multiple destinations, including accommodations and information on how and when the other parent can have non-physical electronic access (via telephone, text, facetime, skype etc.).
Special events of importance to families (birthdays, weddings, reunions, funerals etc.) are occasions to call for deviation from the within access schedule. Each party shall seek consent to deviate in writing (text is acceptable) with as much advance notice as possible given the circumstance. Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The parent commencing parenting time be it regular, holiday or vacation shall be responsible for transportation to affect his or her access by picking Mila up at the other parent's residence.
Both parties shall refrain from engaging in discussion at exchanges.
The parties shall share regular parenting time (in the manner set forth in their April 13, 2017 temporary order) as follows:
WEEK ONE (commencing with Father's Weekend):
Father shall have parenting time Friday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school until Monday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school.
Mother shall have parenting time Monday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school until Wednesday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school.
Father shall have parenting time Wednesday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school until Friday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school.
WEEK TWO (commencing with Mother's Weekend):
Mother shall have parenting time Friday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school until Monday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school.
Father shall have parenting time Monday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school until Wednesday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school.
Mother shall have parenting time Wednesday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school until Friday after school or 6:00 p.m. if no school.
Repeat rotation commencing with Week One.
Any such additional, different or further regular parenting time as can be agreed and arranged between the parties.
Both parties shall have special uninterrupted summer access with Mila (once she is enrolled in full time kindergarten) as follows:
Each party shall be entitled to two (2) weeks uninterrupted access each Summer during Mila's recess from school; herein defined as the time running from the day after the last day of school to the day before school resumes session.
The vacation weeks shall run non-consecutive. A week is herein defined as seven (7) consecutive days and no more. A week must commence on the vacationing parent's Friday of his or her weekend access and run to the following Friday.
Vacation access supersedes regular access, but is subordinate to holiday access and cannot be "added on" to extend a week to ten (10) days without the express consent of the other parent.
In even years (2020, 2022 etc.), Father shall choose his two (2) weeks first and advise Mother in writing no later than June 1st. Thereafter, Mother shall choose her weeks and advise Father in writing no later than June 15th.
In odd years (2021, 2023 etc.), Mother shall choose her two (2) weeks first and advise Father in writing no later than June 1st. Thereafter, Father shall choose his weeks and advise Mother in writing no later than June 15th.
Any additional summer vacation access as can be agreed and arranged.
The parties shall share holidays and days of special meaning as follows:
Easter Holiday —
In 2018 and all even years, Mother shall have the Easter holiday from Easter Saturday at 12:00 p.m. to Easter Sunday at 12:00 p.m. Father shall have Easter Sunday at 12:00 p.m. to Easter Monday at 12:00 p.m. whereupon the parties shall return to their regular access schedule.
In 2019 and all odd years, Father shall have the Easter holiday from Easter Saturday at 12:00 p.m. to Easter Sunday at 12:00 p.m. Mother shall have Easter Sunday at 12:00 p.m. to Easter Monday at 12:00 p.m. whereupon the parties shall return to their regular access schedule.
Mother's Day — Regardless of whose "regular weekend", Mother shall always have Mother's Day Weekend from "Mother's Day Saturday" at 12:00pm to Monday whereupon the parties shall return to their regular access schedule.
Father's Day - Regardless of whose "regular weekend", Father shall always have Father's Day from "Father's Day Saturday" at 12:00pm to Monday whereupon the parties shall return to their regular access schedule
Fourth of July —
In 2018 and all even years, Father shall have the holiday from 12:00 p.m. on July 4th to [*9]12:00 p.m. on July 5th whereupon the parties shall return to their regular access schedule.
In 2019 and all odd years, Mother shall have the holiday from 12:00 p.m. on July 4th to 12:00 p.m. on July 5th whereupon the parties shall return to their regular access schedule.
Thanksgiving —
In 2018 and all even years, Father shall have special Thanksgiving access from Wednesday 12:00 p.m. to Thanksgiving Day at 12:00 p.m. and Mother shall have Thanksgiving Day at 12:00 p.m. to Friday at 12:00 p.m. whereupon the parties shall resume their regular access schedule
In 2019 and all odd years, Mother shall have special Thanksgiving access from Wednesday 12:00 p.m. to Thanksgiving Day at 12:00 p.m. and Father shall have Thanksgiving Day at 12:00 p.m. to Friday at 12:00 p.m. whereupon the parties shall resume their regular access schedule
Christmas—
In 2017 and all odd years, Father shall have special Christmas access from 12/24 at 12:00 p.m. to 12/25 at 12:00 p.m. and Mother shall have 12/25 at 12:00 p.m. to 12/26 at 12:00 p.m. whereupon the parties shall resume their regular access schedule
In 2018 and all even years, Mother shall have special Christmas access from 12/24 at 12:00 p.m. to 12/25 at 12:00 p.m. and Father shall have 12/25 at 12:00 p.m. to 12/26 at 12:00 p.m. whereupon the parties shall resume their regular access schedule
Any such additional and further and additional holiday or day of special meaning access as can be agreed and arranged between the parties.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Submission of an Order by the Parties is not necessary.
Dated:December 11, 2017
Buffalo, New York.
HON. MARY G. CARNEY, F.J.C.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.
December 11, 2017:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
