Provides that the issue of military deployment shall not be considered as a factor in the awarding of custody in marital actions where a suitable child care plan is presented.
Sponsor: RANZENHOFER JUDICIARY
Law Section: Domestic Relations Law
Law: Amd SS70 & 240, Dom Rel L
Law Section: Domestic Relations Law
Law: Amd SS70 & 240, Dom Rel L
- Mar 12, 2012: referred to judiciary
- Mar 12, 2012: DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
- Mar 12, 2012: PASSED SENATE
- Mar 7, 2012: ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
- Mar 6, 2012: 2ND REPORT CAL.
- Mar 5, 2012: 1ST REPORT CAL.284
- Jan 4, 2012: REFERRED TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
- Jan 4, 2012: returned to senate
- Jan 4, 2012: died in assembly
- May 25, 2011: referred to judiciary
- May 25, 2011: DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
- May 25, 2011: PASSED SENATE
- May 4, 2011: ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
- May 3, 2011: 2ND REPORT CAL.
- May 2, 2011: 1ST REPORT CAL.404
- Feb 14, 2011: REFERRED TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
S3228-2011 MeetingsChildren and Families: Mar 5, 2012, Children and Families: May 2, 2011
S3228-2011 CalendarsActive List: Mar 12, 2012 , Active List: May 25, 2011 , Floor Calendar: Mar 6, 2012 , Floor Calendar: Mar 7, 2012 , Floor Calendar: Mar 12, 2012 , Floor Calendar: May 3, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 4, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 9, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 10, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 11, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 16, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 17, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 18, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 23, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 24, 2011 , Floor Calendar: May 25, 2011
VOTE: COMMITTEE VOTE: - Children and Families - May 2, 2011
VOTE: FLOOR VOTE: - May 25, 2011
Ayes (58): Adams, Addabbo, Alesi, Avella, Ball, Bonacic, Breslin, Carlucci, DeFrancisco, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Farley, Flanagan, Fuschillo, Gallivan, Gianaris, Golden, Griffo, Grisanti, Hannon, Hassell-Thomps, Johnson, Kennedy, Klein, Krueger, Kruger, Lanza, Larkin, Libous, Little, Marcellino, Martins, Maziarz, McDonald, Montgomery, Nozzolio, O'Mara, Oppenheimer, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Ranzenhofer, Ritchie, Rivera, Robach, Saland, Sampson, Savino, Serrano, Seward, Skelos, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousin, Valesky, Young, Zeldin
Excused (4): Huntley, LaValle, Smith, Squadron
VOTE: COMMITTEE VOTE: - Children and Families - Mar 5, 2012
VOTE: FLOOR VOTE: - Mar 12, 2012
Ayes (60): Adams, Addabbo, Alesi, Avella, Ball, Bonacic, Breslin, Carlucci, DeFrancisco, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Farley, Flanagan, Fuschillo, Gallivan, Gianaris, Golden, Griffo, Grisanti, Hannon, Hassell-Thomps, Huntley, Johnson, Kennedy, Klein, Krueger, Lanza, Larkin, LaValle, Libous, Little, Marcellino, Martins, Maziarz, McDonald, Montgomery, Nozzolio, O'Mara, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Ranzenhofer, Ritchie, Rivera, Robach, Saland, Sampson, Savino, Serrano, Seward, Skelos, Smith, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousin, Valesky, Young, Zeldin
Excused (1): Oppenheimer
BILL NUMBER:S3228 TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to determinations of child custody in matrimonial actions PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The possibility or probability of a military parent being deployed should not be a factor in a child custody determination when a suitable child care plan is presented. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The legislation will remove the possibility of being deployed for military service as a member of the United States Armed Forces or of the organized militia of the State of New York as a detrimental factor when determining custody. The parent with possibility of deployment must provide a suitable child care plan for the period of such deployment. JUSTIFICATION: Persons serving our country, whether active duty, reservists and National Guard, being deployed to hostile territories around the globe or to other locations around the nation, should not lose custody of their children solely because they may be deployed away from their family. This legislation will prevent the court from using deployment and military status as a detrimental factor in determining custody. This is a necessary safeguard for military or militia personnel that put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2010: S.7523/A.4079 -- CHILDREN & FAMILIES/Judiciary 2007-08: A.6027 -- Judiciary 2006: A.10436 -- Judiciary FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ 3228 2011-2012 Regular Sessions I N SENATE February 14, 2011 ___________ Introduced by Sens. RANZENHOFER, DeFRANCISCO -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Children and Families AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to determi- nations of child custody in matrimonial actions THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 70 of the domestic relations law is amended by adding a new subdivision (c) to read as follows:
(C) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THE COURT SHALL NOT CONSIDER THE DEPLOYMENT OF A PARENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE ORGANIZED MILITIA OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A DETRIMENTAL FACTOR TO THE AWARDING OF CUSTODY OF A CHILD WHERE A SUITABLE CHILD CARE PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF SUCH DEPLOY- MENT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE PETITIONING PARENT. S 2. Paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 240 of the domestic relations law, as amended by chapter 476 of the laws of 2009, is amended and a new subdivision 1-d is added to read as follows:
(a) In any action or proceeding brought (1) to annul a marriage or to declare the nullity of a void marriage, or (2) for a separation, or (3) for a divorce, or (4) to obtain, by a writ of habeas corpus or by peti- tion and order to show cause, the custody of or right to visitation with any child of a marriage, the court shall require verification of the status of any child of the marriage with respect to such child's custody and support, including any prior orders, and shall enter orders for custody and support as, in the court's discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and to the best interests of the child and subject to the provisions of [
subdivision] SUBDIVISIONS one-c AND ONE-D of this section. Where either party to an action concerning custody of or a right to visitation with a child alleges in a sworn petition or EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD02429-01-1 S. 3228 2 complaint or sworn answer, cross-petition, counterclaim or other sworn responsive pleading that the other party has committed an act of domes- tic violence against the party making the allegation or a family or household member of either party, as such family or household member is defined in article eight of the family court act, and such allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child, together with such other facts and circumstances as the court deems relevant in making a direction pursuant to this section and state on the record how such findings, facts and circumstances factored into the direction. If a parent makes a good faith allegation based on a reasonable belief supported by facts that the child is the victim of child abuse, child neglect, or the effects of domestic violence, and if that parent acts lawfully and in good faith in response to that reason- able belief to protect the child or seek treatment for the child, then that parent shall not be deprived of custody, visitation or contact with the child, or restricted in custody, visitation or contact, based solely on that belief or the reasonable actions taken based on that belief. If an allegation that a child is abused is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then the court shall consider such evidence of abuse in determining the visitation arrangement that is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall not place a child in the custody of a parent who presents a substantial risk of harm to that child, and shall state on the record how such findings were factored into the determi- nation. An order directing the payment of child support shall contain the social security numbers of the named parties. In all cases there shall be no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent. Such direction shall make provision for child support out of the property of either or both parents. The court shall make its award for child support pursuant to subdivision one-b of this section. Such direc- tion may provide for reasonable visitation rights to the maternal and/or paternal grandparents of any child of the parties. Such direction as it applies to rights of visitation with a child remanded or placed in the care of a person, official, agency or institution pursuant to article ten of the family court act, or pursuant to an instrument approved under section three hundred fifty-eight-a of the social services law, shall be enforceable pursuant to part eight of article ten of the family court act and sections three hundred fifty-eight-a and three hundred eighty- four-a of the social services law and other applicable provisions of law against any person having care and custody, or temporary care and custo- dy, of the child. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any writ- ten application or motion to the court for the establishment, modifica- tion or enforcement of a child support obligation for persons not in receipt of public assistance and care must contain either a request for child support enforcement services which would authorize the collection of the support obligation by the immediate issuance of an income execution for support enforcement as provided for by this chapter, completed in the manner specified in section one hundred eleven-g of the social services law; or a statement that the applicant has applied for or is in receipt of such services; or a statement that the applicant knows of the availability of such services, has declined them at this time and where support enforcement services pursuant to section one hundred eleven-g of the social services law have been declined that the applicant understands that an income deduction order may be issued pursuant to subdivision (c) of section fifty-two hundred forty-two of the civil practice law and rules without other child support enforcement S. 3228 3 services and that payment of an administrative fee may be required. The court shall provide a copy of any such request for child support enforcement services to the support collection unit of the appropriate social services district any time it directs payments to be made to such support collection unit. Additionally, the copy of any such request shall be accompanied by the name, address and social security number of the parties; the date and place of the parties' marriage; the name and date of birth of the child or children; and the name and address of the employers and income payors of the party from whom child support is sought or from the party ordered to pay child support to the other party. Such direction may require the payment of a sum or sums of money either directly to the custodial parent or to third persons for goods or services furnished for such child, or for both payments to the custodial parent and to such third persons; provided, however, that unless the party seeking or receiving child support has applied for or is receiving such services, the court shall not direct such payments to be made to the support collection unit, as established in section one hundred eleven-h of the social services law. Every order directing the payment of support shall require that if either parent currently, or at any time in the future, has health insurance benefits available that may be extended or obtained to cover the child, such parent is required to exercise the option of additional coverage in favor of such child and execute and deliver to such person any forms, notices, documents or instruments necessary to assure timely payment of any health insurance claims for such child. 1-D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, THE COURT SHALL NOT CONSIDER THE DEPLOYMENT OF A PARENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE ORGANIZED MILITIA OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS A DETRIMENTAL FACTOR TO THE AWARDING OF CUSTODY OF A CHILD TO A PETITIONING PARENT WHERE A SUITABLE CHILD CARE PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF SUCH DEPLOYMENT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY SUCH PARENT. S 3. This act shall take effect immediately.