Custody trials can be a challenging part of a divorce or post-judgment divorce case in the Supreme Court where there is a disagreement over the custody and parenting time of a child. A custody and visitation (parenting time) case can also proceed to trial in the Family Court. Although the procedures to get to trial and other aspects of the case might have differences between the Supreme Court and Family Court, the actual trial on the custody and visitation of the children fundamentally will be the same in the two New York courts. I am a Long Island Child Custody Attorney and have experience handling Supreme Court and Family Court child custody cases all around New York City and Long Island.
There are two general categories of custody trials that I am going to discuss in this blog entry. The two are an initial custody determination and a modification of a prior order (writs of habeas corpus, contempt and enforcement proceedings will be discussed in later entries). In both categories, the Judge or Trier of Fact (sometimes called a Referee), must make the final decision on what is in the children’s best interests. However, in a modification of custody proceeding there is an additional first obstacle that needs to be surmounted. The requesting party must first prove that there is a substantial change of circumstances that requires the best interests of the child(ren) to be weighed. It is important for the lawyer and the parties to keep these standards in mind throughout a trial in order to present the most compelling and relevant information to the court. The judge on your case will appreciate a focused presentation that does not include too much superfluous information or irrelevant material. There are no jury trials for custody issues in New York so the hearing is what is called a bench trial. The judge is the audience and the person who decides the case.
The petitioning or moving party goes first and will be given the opportunity to make an opening statement. The responding party or other side of the case will be given a chance to make their opening statement afterwards. Often their will be an attorney for the child or children that will also have the chance to make a statement. Sometimes lawyers, or self-represented parties, will waive their right to make an opening statement and choose instead to let the evidence brought out, or the lack of evidence, speak for itself. That is because the opening statements are not actually evidence. They are a recitation of what might be brought out in evidence. Stylistic preferences, and the facts of the case, will influence whether to make an opening statement or how to do it. It is important to keep those aforementioned standards in mind, specifically, if a substantial change of circumstances needs to be first shown. Also, everyone should never lose sight that ultimately what is in the best interests of the child(ren) is most important. Continue reading ›