§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Brooke S. B., Respondent,v.Elizabeth A. C.C., Respondent.--------------------------------R. Thomas Rankin, Esq., Attorney for the Child, Appellant.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Jaffee v. Redmond

    518 U.S. 1 (1996)   Cited 1,170 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence"

  2. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. # 1 v. Redding

    557 U.S. 364 (2009)   Cited 448 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a strip search of a student by school officials is "categorically distinct" and "requir[es] distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings"

  3. Matter of Tropea v. Tropea

    87 N.Y.2d 727 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 808 times
    Rejecting presumptions and holding that relocation request must be considered in totality of circumstances "with predominant emphasis ... placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child"

  4. Alison D. v. Virginia M

    77 N.Y.2d 651 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that de facto parent did not have standing to pursue visitation with child because domesticrelations law “gives parents the right to bring proceedings to ensure their proper exercise of their care, custody and control” and “[w]here the Legislature deemed it appropriate, it gave other categories of persons standing to seek visitation ... in the child's best interests”

  5. Debra v. Janice

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3755 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 53 times
    Reaffirming its prior rejection of judicially created de facto parenthood and refusing to exercise its equitable powers to do so absent legislative action

  6. Chatterjee v. King

    280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012)   Cited 43 times
    Holding a case-by-case analysis is the best way to determine whether a parent has met the openly held out requirement and established a personal, financial, or custodial relationship with the child

  7. Barone v. Chapman-Cleland

    129 A.D.3d 1578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    2015-06-19 In The Matter of Brooke S. BARONE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Elizabeth A. CHAPMAN–CLELAND, Respondent–Respondent. R. Thomas Rankin, Esq., Attorney for The Child, Appellant. R. Thomas Rankin, Attorney for The Child, Jamestown, Appellant pro se. Brooke S. Barone, Petitioner–Respondent pro se. R. Thomas Rankin, Attorney for The Child, Jamestown, Appellant pro se. Brooke S. Barone, Petitioner–Respondent pro se. Sherry A. Bjork, Frewsburg, for Respondent–Respondent. PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO

  8. Arriaga v. Dukoff

    123 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    2014-12-24 In the Matter of Estrellita ARRIAGA, respondent, v. Jennifer L. DUKOFF, appellant. Margaret Schaefler, Hauppauge, N.Y., for appellant. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey S. Trachtman and Andrew J. Estes of counsel), and Gervase & Mintz P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Susan G. Mintz of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed). REINALDO E. RIVERA Margaret Schaefler, Hauppauge, N.Y., for appellant. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey S. Trachtman

  9. Estrellita A. v. Jennifer D.

    40 Misc. 3d 219 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    2013-04-2 ESTRELLITA A., Petitioner, v. JENNIFER D., Respondent. Margaret Schaefler, Esq., Central Islip, for respondent. Gervase & Mintz, P.C., Garden City, for petitioner. THERESA WHELAN Margaret Schaefler, Esq., Central Islip, for respondent. Gervase & Mintz, P.C., Garden City, for petitioner. Jennifer Marin, Esq., Legal Aid Society of Suffolk, Central Islip, attorney for the Child. THERESA WHELAN, J. BACKGROUND At issue in this case is whether petitioner, Estrellita A. (“petitioner”) is precluded