Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
S.G., Plaintiff v. K.G., Defendant
The parties were married on May 19, 2012. There are two children; the oldest daughter, born on xx/xx/2014 and the youngest daughter born on xx/xx/2016. The divorce action was commenced on November 15, 2018. The primary dispute between the parties is custody and visitation of the children complicated by the plaintiff wife's desire to relocate to Michigan for work.
Trial was commenced on the issues of custody, visitation and relocation in front of the Hon. Tracey Bannister. Both parties want to be the primary custodial parent. Testimony was taken on October 21 and 22, 2019. Judge Bannister was elevated to the Appellate Division in late October and the matter was transferred to this court to complete the trial. The parties stipulated to the use of testimony taken by Judge Bannister. Nine witnesses (Witness A, Witness B, Witness C, Witness D, Witness E, Witness F, Witness G, Witness H and Witness J) testified on those days and transcripts of their testimony were provided for review to this court.
Additional trial days were held on: December 11 and 12, 2019; January 10, 2020; February 25, 2020; March 12, 2020; and July 16, 2020. (Additional trial dates were set in March, 2020 but could not go forward due to the restrictions associated with the Coronavirus pandemic.) The witnesses on the additional trial days included Witness K, the father, the mother and Witness L.
Hon. Mary Slisz entered the first access order in March, 2019 which provided the following access for the father: alternate weekends, midweek Tuesday night to Wednesday morning, and Fridays on the weeks he did not have overnight visitation from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. When this matter initially started, the father had Friday afternoons off from work every week. Transportation was to be provided by the nanny and when not available the exchange was to take place at Tim Horton's in Boston, NY. The nanny, at the time this action was commenced up to the present, is Witness L.
Cases in Erie County are handled in an Expedited Matrimonial part first and, if not resolved within six months an IAS trial judge is assigned. The case moved from the Expedited Matrimonial part to the Hon. Tracey Bannister. Judge Bannister issued an order on August 19, 2019 ordering the children be enrolled in the Hamburg School District as the parties could not agree on the schools the children would attend in September, 2019. This court issued an order relating to the Thanksgiving recess for 2019 which was ultimately signed on December 9, 2019. At the end of the hearing on December 12, 2019 a schedule for the Christmas holiday was ordered as the parties could not agree on holiday access. (Transcript, December 12, 2019.) At the end of the March 12, 2020 hearing, this court gave a verbal and printed directive for visitation out of concern the hearing might not be finished the following week. The father's work schedule had changed so he no longer had Friday afternoons off. The visitation every Friday with the father was impeding the mother's ability to do any long weekends with the children. Witness K had testified the father's access was on the low side, but also opined that transitions should be decreased. The visitation schedule (Addendum A) was adhered to by the parties starting in March, 2020 through the hearing date in July, 2020. In a fourteen day cycle the mother has the children for eight (8) overnights and the father has the children for six (6) overnights. Mother's Day 2019 and 2020 also necessitated calls to the court for guidance on visitation. Father's Day also necessitated calls to the court. The inability of the parties to communicate with each other is evident. They are inflexible with their scheduling.
This court attempted to have the parties work with the “Children Come First” program facilitated by a social worker, with no results. The parties acknowledge they do not speak to each other. Communication is via text. They are extremely rigid with times and there is no deviation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Both parents are from the Western New York area. Both are professionals. The wife works for RS, LLC and has worked there since 2017. She was hired as the Director of Financial Planning and Analysis at a salary of just over $100,000. Her employment has been complicated by the company moving most operations to Michigan. The owner, Witness D in 2019, sent her a letter indicating her “continued employment” was conditioned upon her relocation to Bloomfield Hills, Michigan as of September 1, 2019. It also indicated she would be terminated if she did not move. (Plaintiff's 4). Between the time of the letter and the start of the trial with Judge Bannister, both the Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller left the company. The mother was able to stay on with the company without moving and received a raise to $140,000. It is hard to say whether her position will be terminated if she does not move. As with most people who retained their jobs during the pandemic, all work was virtual and the mother was able to continue working virtually. It would seem however, that her employer may at some point be less understanding about her working in a remote location away from their principal headquarters. As such, her job is one of her primary reasons for wanting to move to Michigan.
The husband works as an engineer for Fisher Price. He has held the job for many years and he too was able to maintain his employment and work from home during the pandemic.
Witness A was the first witness. She has a Masters in Counseling from Canisius College. She initially did marriage counseling with both parties. When divorce was imminent, she continued with the mother only starting in January 2019 and continuing to the present. Her testimony was limited to her treatment of the mother as counselor/ patient privilege was not waived by the defendant. Her testimony was essentially bolstering that of the plaintiff, reiterating what was to come in the way of testimony from the mother as to the parenting of the two parties. She described the mother as the primary caretaker pre-divorce filing. That is she was the one who interviewed the nannies, scheduled the medical and dental appointments, and coordinated the children's activities. She testified that simultaneously with the filing of the divorce papers in 2019, the defendant father became much more involved. She proffered a diagnosis of “battered women's syndrome”. This was based upon verbal or “menacing” situations described by the mother; not physical altercations between the parties. Her basis for the diagnosis was based on information from the mother.
Witness B was the first nanny for the oldest daughter. He was the primary caretaker for his two sons and was able to watch his children and the oldest daughter. The work arrangement came about as his wife and the mother were friends and worked together. He testified all arrangements for his work with the parties’ were done by the mother. He watched the oldest daughter from approximately December, 2014 until July, 2015 when his family relocated to Massachusetts.
Witness C, Witness B's wife, testified to her friendship with the mother. She described the mother as the one to set up play dates between the children.
Witness D was the nanny who succeeded Witness B. She worked from approximately June, 2015 to July, 2016 watching over the oldest daughter. She too considered most of her contact to be with the mother starting with an initial forty five minute phone interview. Both parents met her at a coffee shop for an in person interview. The mother prepared the contract. She would arrive at the parties’ home in the morning. She described the mother as the primary caretaker for the oldest daughter and the father as having already left for work when she arrived in the mornings. Almost all her communication was with the mother. On the father's Friday afternoons when he was off, he would hunt or do other activities and she would work and provide care for the oldest daughter. She would text with the mother throughout the day as to oldest daughter's activities. She described the father's rules of the house as the children not being allowed to have toys with wheels in the kitchen, lest they scratch the floor. She also was upset when asked by the father about a scratch to a stove knob.
Witness L, although the last witness, is also summarized here as she was the third nanny for the youngsters. She began working in June, 2016 coming to the family through CARE.com. Her work hours were 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Fridays. When she started the oldest daughter was almost 2 and the youngest daughter was a newborn. The mother was at home for the first three months. She described both parents as active with the children and Fridays as being the father's “special lunch day with the oldest daughter”. The mother's parents were frequent visitors; The father's parents she saw less frequently. She felt the current visitation schedule is going smoothly and the girls have adapted to it quickly.
Witness J, the director of Watermark Wesleyan preschool for children ages three to five, testified. The oldest daughter was a student there in the 2017 to 2018 school year. She was an extremely short witness who had contact with both parents, although she testified the mother was the point of first contact, “because usually the moms are the main contact at first”.
Three witnesses on the afternoon of October 21, 2019 were called to discuss the difficulty in placing the mother in a comparable job to her current employment in the Western New York area. Their testimony was, in summary, that the mother is overqualified for the available jobs and there are few Chief Financial Officer jobs available in the Western New York area.
Witness D, one of the two owners of RS, LLC, d/b/a/ R, testified. He is also the Chief Executive Officer and the plaintiff works for his company. They have approximately sixty employees in the Buffalo area. The company at one time was originally in Boston, moved to the Buffalo area, and then moved their R & D headquarters to Michigan in about 2012. The mother began working for the company in 2017 as Director of Financial Planning and Analysis. Her starting salary was approximately $110,000. Her job location was to be in Buffalo with some travel requirements to Michigan. In May, 2019 a letter was sent to the mother advising her job was being transferred to Michigan, and should she not move, she would be terminated effective September 1, 2019, “or earlier upon RS's hiring of your replacement at the Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, headquarters.” (Exhibit 4). As of October, 2019, when Witness D was testifying, the mother had not been terminated. The company lost both their CFO and Comptroller between May and September, 2019, so the mother received a raise to $140,000 effective September 1, 2019. The mother became a member of the leadership/executive team with the promotion. Ideally, the mother would relocate to Michigan. The owner's preference is to have the executive there in person to sit in on team meetings. As of the October testimony, she would be expected to travel to Asia and, if not based in Michigan, he would want the mother there “50 percent of the time.” (Testimony of Witness D, pg.96).
Witness K testified. He has a PhD in Psychology and has worked with children and families since 1983. He first met the mother in January, 2019 when the divorce action was started. In his opinion: the visitation was on the low side for the father; he felt the transition times for the children were too frequent; and, transitions should be decreased. He opined frequent transitions do not give children the stability they need. Both parties should have sufficient time to nurture a positive relationship with the children. On February 1, 2019 the mother mentioned Michigan to him. He then provided an exhaustive analysis of the various school districts based on his knowledge of all the school districts in Western New York, and studies he relied on to review the school districts in Michigan, which all had relatively high ratings.
The parties both testified. The father was called as a plaintiff's witness and cross examined by plaintiff's counsel on December 11 and 12, 2020, and resumed the stand as a direct witness on March 12 and July 16, 2020.
The mother started her testimony the afternoon of December 12, 2019 and continued on January 10, February 25 and most of March 12, 2020. The mother was very organized and thorough in her record keeping. Introduced into evidence were calendars, text messages and travel schedules showing which party traveled out of town on which days, phone interview questions for the nannies she interviewed, doctor and dentist visits for the children with attendance noted. Approximately 82 exhibits were marked for the plaintiff and 61 for the defendant.
The mother was most certainly the primary caretaker when the children were babies and up to the time the divorce started. She nursed both girls and was primarily responsible for medical, dental, and day care arrangements.
The marital residence was owned by the father prior to the parties’ marriage, but was very substantially renovated during the marriage to accommodate the family. It is in the Hamburg school district. Much of the time after oldest daughter was born, the father spent at the marital residence renovating while the family stayed at another residence in Colden. She described her father as the general contractor for the work on the house. This would have been a stressful time for the mother as the father was working on the home remodel and not available to provide help in the evenings, weekends or help with her lack of sleep with a newborn child at home. They were displaced from the home during construction from July, 2014 until March, 2015. The oldest daughter was born in September 2014.
She testified to arranging the girls’ birthday parties and christenings. She also took care of: the recruiting/search for nannies; the babysitter paperwork for unemployment, social security and withholding; school interviews and searches for pre-kindergarten; doctor and dentist visits; play dates; and grocery, clothing and diaper shopping.
The mother grew up in Pendleton and her parents live in Colden. She has two brothers in the Western New York area. Her parents provide babysitting help and, as noted before, her father helped with the remodel of the marital residence. She has a supportive family in the Western New York area. She described the father's parents as uninvolved.
She testified to her various jobs and promotions through the years. She clearly enjoys her work and job growth opportunities at RS.LLC and noted the lack of similar job opportunities in the Western New York area.
The mother currently resides in Orchard Park. She would like the girls to attend the Orchard Park schools, however Judge Bannister ordered Hamburg where the marital residence is located. Before schools shut down in March 2020, she would drive the oldest daughter to school on the days she had her overnight. The father would use the bus for the oldest daughter to get to school when at his house. The mother does not like the school the oldest daughter has attended. As an example of why, she stated kindergartners have tablets whereas Orchard Park does not introduce tablets until middle school. She feels Orchard Park has better programming for gifted students and she considers the oldest daughter gifted.
She described the father as uninvolved until the divorce started. She had to beg him to cook a meal. He would hunt in October and November and, when not hunting, would spend time in the summer checking cameras and stands and putting in special plants for deer. She testified to several “rage attacks” by the father over silly things like a scratch on the stove or and tire marks on the grass. She also testified to his lack of willingness to work with her on transitioning of the girls or following suggestions to make the transition easier for them involving items like certain stuffed animals or an event. If not done at school or via the nanny the transitions take place at Tim Horton's. She testified she can not co-parent with the father as one party is trying to control the other parent. She feels any conversations with the father about the children are “hostile negotiations” and she chooses not to engage.
The father also grew up in the Western New York area. His parents live near the marital residence. He has a sister who now resides in Pennsylvania with two children about the age of the children. They have taken family trips to visit her in both Massachusetts, when she resided there, and to Pennsylvania. He has been at Fisher Price since 2007 and works as an engineer. He denied the mother's claims of hostility and “rage” incidents involving either the scratch on the stove or the ruts in the grass. He certainly spent a lot of time renovating the house. The court's impression is that he put a lot of work and effort into the marital residence which he saw as being the forever home for the family, and he is having a hard time reconciling to this not being the case.
This is an initial custody application, complicated by mother's desire to move to Michigan. Since this concerns an initial custody determination, strict application of Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 NY2d 727(1996) factors relevant to relocation petitions is not required. The mother's request for permission to relocate with the children to Michigan is but one factor to be considered in determining what custody arrangement is in the children's best interests. See, Matter of Renee P.-F. v. Frank G., 161 AD3d 1163 (2d Dept. 2018); Matter of McDonald v. Thomas, 154 AD3d 763, 764 (2d Dept. 2017); Forrestel v. Forrestel, 125 AD3d 1299 (4th Dept. 2015).
Minimizing contact between the parents, easing transition times for the children, and having clearly spelled out responsibilities for the parents is the goal of this court. Even if the children's best interests would be advanced by parents who would talk to each other and cooperate, the court is powerless to make that happen. It can be encouraged, and hopefully with time the acrimony associated with the divorce will dispel. The current custodial arrangement, which minimizes contact between the parents, is hopefully providing the children with some stability. Both parents are certainly fit parents and have good homes for the children.
Although the custody trial included evidence of acrimony between the parties, both parents have the children's best interests at heart although what each perceives to be in their best interests is different.
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 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., 56 Misc 3d 975 (NY Sup. Ct. 2017) 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. J.R., Id. at 983 quoting: Braiman v. Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 589-590, 591 (1978).
As Justice Cooper 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 550 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).
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].” Id. at 984.
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 the children's best interests.
In this case, there was credible evidence the parties had a basically functional relationship with the mother being primary care giver during the children's tender years. As the prospect of divorce loomed, the father became more active in their day to day affairs. He clearly spent a lot of time hunting early in the marriage and missing time at home during Thanksgiving for hunting. He was very evasive on the stand when answering basic questions in this regard. In terms of the divorce, they each seem to want to be perceived as better than the other, fueled by the mother's strong desire to relocate to Michigan
There was no testimony that demonstrated either parent's parenting ability or fitness being superior to the other. In terms of schooling options, the father seems comfortable with not exploring options as he went to the Hamburg schools and most likely simply envisioned his daughters going to school there as well. The mother seems more attuned to their individual needs and accepting that different schools may be better for each child dependent on their strengths and abilities. There was no evidence presented to show either parent was unfit, or even less fit than the other in terms of parenting ability. Although mother was critical of father, (such as in highlighting several instances of his over reaction to damages to the house and his strict rules on toys in the kitchen) there was nothing offered to show this was directed to the children or that he was not an involved, attentive parent. None of these factors weighed more heavily in either parent's favor.
With respect to the quality of each parent's home environment, both have provided good homes for the children and will continue to do so. There was nothing before the court to conclude that the quality of either parent's home surpassed the other.
Both parents seem respectful of the time each parent has with the children. Their only difficulty is accommodating any changes to a schedule which would necessitate discussion.
Both parents can financially support the children. This factor does not weigh more heavily in either parent's favor.
Both parties demonstrated appropriate and equal love and affection for the children. There was no proof that either party has a superior emotional bond. While the mother provided more nurturing to the children as infants, both seem to have a good bond with the children. This factor did not weigh more heavily in either parent's favor.
Due to the children's tender years, no request was made for an in camera discussion with the children and the court did not deem it necessary to request one sua sponte.
After a review of all the evidence and being in a position to observe the demeanor and credibility of the parents, the court finds that, in the totality of the circumstances, the best interests of the children are served by granting the parties joint legal and physical custody. While both shall also have decision-making ability, there are certain “spheres” the court will give to each party so that final decision making in the event there is no agreement will be with one parent.
First, the current visitation schedule will be slightly amended so that each party has seven days in a two week rotation. That schedule is set forth below:
Both parties presented as equally flawed and good, as well as caring and loving parents. Neither party stands out as more suited to be the primary custodial parent to the exclusion of the other having equal parenting ability. 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. The above schedule has the maximum number of nights with either party being five. However, should the mother for work reasons be required to be in Detroit, or any other location outside of Erie County, NY on a frequent or regular basis, at her sole discretion she may change the above custodial arrangement so that each parent has seven nights of uninterrupted access. She will have the sole determination as to which day of the week the transfer takes place so as to accommodate her travel. (Ex. Should she be required to be at work in Detroit fifty percent of the month, access could be adjusted so each parent has visitation from Saturday at noon to Saturday at noon, giving the mother a full work week in Detroit, and time to travel home before picking up the children.)
The children are to continue in the Hamburg school district so long as one of the parties resides in the school district or they complete eighth grade, whichever is shorter. The mother seems more inclined to embrace the differences of the children and explore schooling options for them. So much can happen over the next years that investigating and choosing a high school and having final say if the parties can not agree on a high school will be the mother's responsibility. The mother shall also have final say on doctor's care for the children. The father shall be responsible for dental/orthodontic care, if needed. The parties are to discuss these matters, but should they not agree it is the mother who has final say on physicians, and father who has final say on dental/orthodontic.
The parties should attempt to cooperate on outside activities, after school activities, what is typically defined as “extra-curricular” activities. Should they not agree, father will have final say on extra-curricular activities. To the fullest extent possible, if the children are signed up for lessons of any type, the parent with access on that day shall attempt to have the children attend the activity. The children should not be over scheduled.
Each party shall be responsible for appropriate day care/after school care for the children while in their custody. This includes care and activities for the children over the summer.
When the children are in the custody of each parent, FaceTime and phone time should be allowed with the other parent to allow for discussion of the day's activities at least one time per day on a regular basis. If this does not happen naturally, each parent will be responsible for setting the time it will occur while in their home.
As the children get older and have more activities, the parents should agree to a shared calendar system such as “Family Wizard” or any other scheduling mechanism making it clear to the parties what the girls have scheduled on a particular day. There will be activities such as birthday party invitations that will inevitably come in that the parties will need to communicate on in some way, as these activities will fall on days the other party has the children.
While the children have been baptized, neither party seemed to have more interest in their religious training than the other. This should remain a joint endeavor by the parties with neither to have a “final” say on this topic. They will need to agree and can choose during their weekend time what the religious activity will be while with the children.
This decision shall be incorporated but not merged into the Judgment of Divorce.
(1) Father and Mother shall enjoy joint legal and physical custody of their daughters;
(2) Father and Mother shall share equal and joint decision making authority with respect to all decisions concerning their health, education and welfare with the caveat that final decision making authority has been given to one or the other parent as set forth in the decision above, should they not be able to agree.
(3) Both parties shall have equal and independent access to all the children's educational and medical records and providers. Each shall have an affirmative, ongoing obligation to keep the other apprised with current contact information for their 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.
(4) 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.
(5) The parties shall adhere to the following conditions of parenting time at all times:
a. There shall be no disparaging remarks or discussion of these proceedings made in the presence of the children by either party, nor shall they permit any third parties to do so.
b. Each parent shall have the right to communicate with the children when they are 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.
c. All holiday access supersedes regular and vacation access. A holiday access schedule is attached as Addendum A.
d. Each party is required to advise the other parent of his or her intention to travel with the children out of state no less than fifteen (15) days in advance of a scheduled trip. Notice shall include itinerary of travel - including airline 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.).
e. 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.
f. Transfers may continue at Tim Horton's unless other arrangements are agreed to by both parents. Transfers are also effectuated through school or other responsible adults picking the children up or dropping them off, eg. nannies or grandparents.
g. Parenting time is as set forth in the chart contained in this decision; which may be modified to seven (7) consecutive days if necessitated by the mother's work solely at her discretion.
(6) Both parties shall have special uninterrupted summer access as follows:
a. Each party shall be entitled to two (2) weeks uninterrupted access each Summer during school recess; herein defined as the time running from the day after the last day of school to the day before school resumes session.
b. 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. This will not apply if the parties have seven (7) consecutive days of access time necessitated by the mother's work.
c. 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.
d. In odd years (2021, 2023 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.
e. In even years (2022, 2024 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.
f. Any additional summer vacation access as can be agreed and arranged.
(7) The parties shall share holidays and days of special meaning as set forth in the addendum attached to this decision. These dates/holidays/times may be modified for access with the children as can be agreed and arranged between the parties.
All the above is So Ordered.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Submission of an Order by the Parties is not necessary. However the Judgment of Divorce should reference and incorporate this Decision and Order as part of said Judgment of Divorce.
ADDENDUM A - HOLIDAY VISITATION SCHEDULE
Paula L. Feroleto, J.
Response sent, thank you
Docket No: Index No. 2018/90XXXX
Decided: October 01, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Erie County, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)