Family Law information blog website contains information relating to family law composed by Globe Education Network paralegal students to benefit attorneys, paralegals, and the general public. DISCLAIMER - THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Anthony Hirtz, Appellant, v. Cameron Hirtz, respondent...BY: LINDY E.
Citation: 969 N.Y.S. 2d 553, 108 A.D. 3d 712, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5370
Parties: Anthony Hirtz, Appellant, v. Cameron Hirtz, respondent
Facts: In July of 2009, the parties agreed to joint legal custody of their two children with primary physical custody to the father. The parties divorced in 2010 and the consent order was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. In 2012, the father, who is employed with the United States Military, was sent military orders reassigning him from West Point in New York, to Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The father filed an instant petition for permission to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ two children; which was later denied in a Family Court hearing.
August 9, 2012, during that Family Law hearing when the court denied the father’s petition to move the two children to North Carolina with him, the court granted sole legal and physical custody to the mother with visitation to the father, and also set forth a custodial plan that would take effect in the event that the parties decided, in the future, to reside in the same state.
Rational: The Court thought that the move to North Carolina would have a negative effect on the children’s relationship with their mother, so the Court decided that it would be best for the children to remain in New York with their mother.
Prior Proceedings: Mr. Hirtz, the appellant, petitioned to relocate with the parties’ children and the court had originally denied the petition and modified a prior order so as to award the appellee mother sole legal and physical custody of the children with visitation to him, and set forth a custodial plan that would take effect in the event that the parties decided, in the future, to reside in the same state.
Holding: The order was modified by deleting the modification and the future custodial plan, and as so modified, the order was affirmed.
Link where I found the case: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/
I found this by searching through LexisNexis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment