NYC Family Court Observation: Cases, Rulings & Insights

Introduction and Courthouse Arrival

I visited the NYC Family Court on October 13, 2016. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what it was going to be like. Having watched many crime-related and legal drama television shows, I already had a picture in my head of what to expect. When I first arrived, I had to walk through a metal detector and clear security — much like at an airport — but that was something I was prepared for. When advising a client on how to dress, I would tell them to dress professionally yet comfortably and to leave as much jewelry as possible at home. I then proceeded to the fourth floor to observe the first proceeding.

There were some aspects of the courthouse that were exactly as I had imagined, but the courtroom itself was nothing like what I expected. I observed eight cases in total, although one was adjourned to another date immediately because both parties never showed up. Each courtroom was relatively small; it included the bench for the judge, tables for the respondent and petitioner, and about two rows of benches for observers. For a broader overview of how family courts are structured and what types of cases they handle, the range of proceedings I witnessed that day was representative of their typical docket.

Child Protection and Domestic Violence Cases

The first case I observed was a child protection and domestic violence case that was at its final stage at the time of observation. The case involved a mother claiming that her husband was abusive and that she needed to protect her child. Both the mother and father were present at the hearing, accompanied by their attorneys, as well as a worker from the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) and her attorney. The father's attorney stated that the father had been attending a domestic violence course weekly since May. Based on the information provided, the mother had agreed to allow her husband to return to their home.

The judge ruled to allow the father back into the home for a six-month trial period during which ACS would continue visiting the home. The father was required to finish the domestic violence course. This conditional agreement was set to conclude on April 13, 2017. During this period, ACS was required to submit three progress reports. The hearing was very brief, lasting only about ten minutes, because both parties had already agreed on an arrangement. Given the information presented, I believe both parties came to a reasonable agreement. The service-oriented issues in this case included child protection services and domestic violence education. The action points I would apply are similar to the judge's ruling — granting the father conditional return to the home while he completes domestic violence classes — and I would address the service-oriented issues on the premise that they can be resolved amicably between the parties.

The second case was the one adjourned within five minutes because both clients never showed up. The only parties present were the three attorneys and the judge. The attorney representing the petitioner requested an immediate adjournment, which the judge allowed, and a new court date was set for November 3, 2016 at 3:30 p.m.

Divorce, Custody, and Changing Circumstances

The third case I observed was a divorce proceeding stemming from domestic violence. This case took place in Part 9, which is the only hybrid courtroom in the state that functions as both a Supreme Court and a Family Court. When the court switches its designation, the courtroom and judge remain the same but different clerks are present. For the divorce case, the court acted as a Supreme Court. The parties present were the judge, the attorney for the woman filing for divorce, and a Spanish-speaking interpreter. The woman filed for divorce on the grounds that her husband was abusive. The judge granted a two-year order of protection while the divorce was being processed.

Although the order of protection was in place, the woman agreed to allow her husband to remain in the apartment until he could find his own assisted living situation. I was puzzled by that arrangement because I did not understand how a person could live in the same household as someone who had a restraining order against them. After inquiring about the situation, I was told that the respondent is permitted to live in the same household but must still uphold the protective order by not harming the petitioner. The service-oriented issue in this case was the husband's violent behavior and its impact on the marriage. I would address this differently by requiring the man to live separately from his wife as part of the restraining order. The practice point I would apply is completely restraining the respondent from contacting the petitioner.

The next case I observed was in the same courtroom, which now acted as a Family Court for a custody matter involving changed circumstances. The parties present were the same judge, the two clients (wife and husband), the same Spanish interpreter from the previous hearing, and an attorney representing the child, though the child was not present. This case had previously been settled with an agreement granting both parents alternating weekly custody of their 12-year-old child. However, circumstances had changed, and the husband alleged that the wife was abusive toward their son. He stated that the mother hit the son, failed to care for him properly, did not feed him adequately, and allowed him to stay out all hours of the night.

The child's lawyer corroborated these allegations, stating that the child told her the mother hit him with objects, cursed at him, and treated him very badly. The child reportedly wanted to live with the father exclusively and did not even want to see his mother. After hearing the allegations, the judge asked whether both parties wanted attorneys. While they agreed, no attorneys were available that day, so the case was adjourned to October 24, 2016. The judge stated that the child could remain with the father until then and ordered an expedited Court Ordered Investigation (COI) by ACS. The judge also indicated he would conduct an "in camera" hearing with the child alone. The service-oriented issues in this case involved child custody and visitation under changed circumstances. I would address these issues similarly to the judge and grant the father temporary custody as a practice point.

Conclusion and Practice Takeaways

The observations made across the different cases at the NYC Family Court provide significant insights into how family-related disputes are resolved. Generally, a family courtroom addresses service-oriented issues relating to members of a family and provides practice points that help in resolving these disputes. The observations connect directly to course materials by highlighting the range of family law issues discussed in class — from domestic violence and child protection to juvenile delinquency and foster care placement.

Based on these observations, I would prepare my clients for court appearances by encouraging them to retain an attorney, familiarize themselves with court formalities and proper conduct, understand the specific issues in their case, prepare thoroughly, and know how long proceedings are likely to take. The experience reinforced how varied and consequential family court matters can be, and how important it is for practitioners and clients alike to approach each proceeding with care and preparation.