Long Island’s Best Divorce Lawyer said this appeal involved the modification of an order of the Supreme Court appointing an individual retroactively as the Attorney for the Children. This individual (hereafter AFC) was previously appointed by the Supreme Court as a “state pay” Attorney for the Children “pursuant to section 243 of the Family Court Act.” AFC represented the interests of the children for two years as a “state pay.” Due to the length and complexity of this ongoing litigation, AFC moved for the Supreme Court to appoint him as a “private pay” Attorney for the Children pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 36.
A Nassau County Child Custody Lawyer said that typically all appointments made pursuant to 22 NYCRR Part 36 are made from a list of applicants established by the Chief Administrator of the Courts. However, an appointing judge has the discretion to appoint a person “not on the appropriate list of applicants upon a finding of good cause.” Here, the Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court’s finding that there was good cause for AFC’s appointment. The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that “given the unusual and complex nature of [the] litigation…it was essential that [AFC] continue his work on behalf of the children.”
During contested custody proceedings an attorney is normally appointed to represent the children. This Attorney for the Children advocates on the children’s behalf to ensure the best interest of the child. Seek out the advice of the experienced attorneys at Simonetti & Associates.
