Young v. Roe

265 A.D. 858, 37 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 2, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 265 A.D. 858 (Young v. Roe) 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
Young v. Roe, 265 A.D. 858, 37 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

The mother is presumptively entitled to custody by force of the decree of a sister state making such award. The New York court, however, is not without power to make a different award if intervening and current circumstances have changed. (Ansorge v. Armour, 267 N. Y. 492; Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §§ 147, 148, and New York Annotations.) The evidence requires a finding that the welfare of the child will be better promoted under the custody of the father. It does not appear that the mother has a permanent home or a firm source of income. There appears to be a suitable degree of domestic and financial security available to the child under the custody of the appellant. The relative virtues and faults of the parents are required to yield to the necessity of choosing the course of probable best welfare for the child. Because of the separate residences of the parents in different states, provisions for divided custody or visitation is not made at this time. This decision is without prejudice to the making of an application for such relief if it becomes practicable. Hagarty, Johnston, Adel, ■Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People ex rel. Sanger v. Sanger
55 A.D.2d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Sutera v. Sutera
1 A.D.2d 356 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Bachman v. Mejias
1 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Guyette v. Haley
286 A.D. 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
People ex rel. Ragona v. de Saint-Cyr
207 Misc. 194 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
In re the Custody of Forbell
198 Misc. 753 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
Harless v. Harless
192 Misc. 5 (New York Family Court, 1948)
Schacht v. Schacht
187 Misc. 461 (New York Family Court, 1946)
People ex rel. Kniffin v. Knight
184 Misc. 545 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 A.D. 858, 37 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-roe-nyappdiv-1942.