Posts
Jeremy D. Morley
A New York appellate
court has ruled that a father could not register a California custody order in
New York when he had previously failed to oppose the mother’s effective
registration of an Israeli custody order which had modified the California
order. Matter of Worsoff
v. Worsoff, 161 A.D. 3d 879, 75 N.Y.S.2d 525 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2018).
The parties lived in
California with their children. In 2014 a California court awarded custody to
the mother with visitation to the father. The mother then moved to Israel with
the children, after which the California court modified its prior order and
granted sole custody to the father.
The mother opened a
custody case in Israel and the Israeli court, on father’s default, issued an
order granting sole custody to the mother, who then relocated with the children
to New York. The mother then filed an application to register the Israeli order
in the Family Court of Nassau County, whose Clerk served the requisite 20-day
notice on the father.
The father did not take
advantage of his statutory UCCJEA right to contest the validity of the
registration by requesting a hearing within twenty days after service of the
notice, and the Clerk of the Family Court certified the registration of the
Israeli order. A few weeks later, the father petitioned the same court to
register and enforce the California order, claiming that the Israeli court had
had no modification jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. “Too late,” said the Family
Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division ruled that the father’s failure to seek
a hearing within the statutory twenty-day period precluded him from
subsequently contesting the registration of the Israeli order. Confirmation of
the registration “precludes further contest of the order with respect to any
matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration” and meant
that the Family Court had necessarily and correctly concluded that the
California order had been effectively modified by the Israeli order.
The Lesson:
Pursuant to the UCCJEA, if the registration of a foreign custody order is
confirmed after the opposing party has failed to request a hearing within
twenty days of service of the required statutory notice, that party cannot
subsequently assert that the foreign order was issued by a court that had no
jurisdiction to do so.
