FAMILY COURT'S DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED DUE TO JUDGE’S ERRORS
After the Rockland County Family Court awarded custody of a child to the father, without a hearing, the maternal uncle appealed.
And on its review of the case, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that (unless the right is “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently” waived) a party sued -- or named as a “respondent” -- in a child custody proceeding may request the assistance of an attorney and has the right to have counsel appointed by the court should they be financially unable to afford same. And since that is considered such a “fundamental right,” errors committed by a judge with respect thereto will often “require reversal.”
Interestingly, the judge in this case erroneously advised the maternal uncle that while he had a right to counsel, and to request an adjournment, since he was a “non-parent,” he did not have the right to assigned counsel. Since the man is said to have lacked a “sufficient awareness” of his rights or the consequences of proceeding without representation, the underlying determination (which granted relief in the father’s favor, without a hearing) was reversed and the matter was sent back for a formal determination of the father’s custody request.
Think someone cried uncle there?
# # #
DECISION