In the Matter of Catherine W.
New York Family Court
116 Misc. 2d 377, 455 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1982)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
The father of Cathleen W. (plaintiff) and Cathleen’s mother (defendant) were married in 1960 and divorced in 1970. While married, they adopted Cathleen, then 17 years old, and Robbie, then 16 years old. Under their separation agreement, the mother was granted custody, alimony, child support for the children, and one weekend of visitation with the children per month. The mother was also required to promptly disclose serious illnesses of the children to the father and allow him access to the children’s medical and school records. Additionally, the separation agreement noted that neither parent should do anything to estrange the children from the other parent or diminish the children’s love and respect for the other parent. Subsequent litigation between the parents resulted in the father being ordered to pay $60 per child per week in child support to the mother. Additionally, Cathleen was excused from visits with her father on the recommendation of the Consultation Services Center, but Robbie was compelled to continue visits. After having all of his efforts to contact the children consistently rejected by the children, the father filed a petition for contempt against the mother and requested an order to make child support dependent on visitation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Willen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
