OUTCOME: We won by proving in Court that the non-biological individuals rights were not violated after the end of the short term relationship where the child was too young to remember the relationship and same was in best interest of the child.
Suffolk County, Family Court in a battle between two women, one the biological mother and the other whom was the non-biological individual seeking to establish rights to visitation after a non-marital ...relationship was ended after approximately one year.
Divorce and separation
Bostinto v. Bostinto
Aug 24, 1994
OUTCOME: Won case in Supreme Court of Suffolk County and also won on appeal after arguing case before the Appellate Division
207 A.D.2d 471, 616 N.Y.S.2d 58
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is the general policy of this State... that a move by the custodial parent to a distant locale will not be permitted when it would effectively deprive the noncustodial parent of regular access to a child of the marriage (see, Amato v Amato, 202 A.D.2d 458; see also, Leslie v Leslie, 180 A.D.2d 620, 621; Ladizhensky v Ladizhensky, 184 A.D.2d 756).
This policy is based upon the principle that visitation is a joint right of both the [207 A.D.2d 472 ] noncustodial parent and the child (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170), and upon the premise that the best interests of the child would be furthered by the child being nurtured and guided by both of the natural parents (see, Rybicki v Rybicki, 176 A.D.2d 867). However, the general rule against relocation is not absolute and it will be permitted upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the wife has demonstrated exceptional circumstances and that the best interests of the infant child of the marriage warrants her relocation to New Mexico (see, Lavane v Lavane, 201 A.D.2d 623; Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 A.D.2d 29).
