People ex rel. Chickering v. Chickering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Chickering v. Chickering

31 A.D.2d 910, 298 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 910 (People ex rel. Chickering v. Chickering) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Chickering v. Chickering, 31 A.D.2d 910, 298 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dated July 29, 1968, in this habeas corpus proceeding, brought by a former wife against her former husband with respect to the custody of their infant son, is unanimously modified on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion to the extent ,of remanding the proceedings to Special Term for further hearings before the Justice who presided at the trial of this cause; such hearings to be conducted after the appointment of the Family Counselling Unit, for the purpose of investigating and reporting, concerning the circumstances with respect to the child’s present environment and the manner in which he is presently being eared for. Of course, the chief concern in 'this, as in all such eases, is the welfare of the child. In determining what is for the best interest of .the child here involved, in the circumstances of this case, it would be most helpful to know under what conditions he is now living, how he is being cared for, and by whom he [911]*911is being eared for. For that reason the matter is remanded. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment dated July 29, 1968, in this habeas corpus proceeding, brought by a former wife against her former husband with respect to the custody of their infant son, is unanimously modified on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion to the extent ,of remanding the proceedings to Special Term for further hearings before the Justice who presided at the trial of this cause; such hearings to be conducted after the appointment of the Family Counselling Unit, for the purpose of investigating and reporting, concerning the circumstances with respect to the child’s present environment and the manner in which he is presently being eared for. Of course, the chief concern in 'this, as in all such eases, is the welfare of the child. In determining what is for the best interest of .the child here involved, in the circumstances of this case, it would be most helpful to know under what conditions he is now living, how he is being cared for, and by whom he [911]*911is being eared for. For that reason the matter is remanded. Concur — Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 910, 298 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-chickering-v-chickering-nyappdiv-1969.