Dawn M. v. Michael M.
New York Supreme Court
55 Misc. 3d 865, 47 N.Y.S.3d 898 (2017)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Dawn M. (plaintiff) and Michael M. (defendant) were married and tried to have a child, but Dawn miscarried. Dawn became close friends with Audria G., who eventually moved in with the couple. The three began having three-way sexual relations and decided that Audria and Michael would have a child together, J.M. The three continued living together until J.M. was more than 18 months old, with the two women sharing maternal responsibilities. Then Dawn and Audria moved out with J.M. When Michael initiated a custody action, the pair agreed to joint custody, with Audria having primary residential custody and Michael three Saturday overnights per month. J.M. identified both women as his mother, calling both “mommy.” Both women shared responsibility for J.M. and made all parenting decisions together. But when Dawn filed for divorce from Michael, Michael stopped viewing her as a parent. When J.M. reached 10 years old, the two women still lived together, but Dawn became concerned that her remaining in J.M.’s life depended on Michael’s and Audria’s continued consent. Audria fully supported Dawn having legal rights, but Michael objected. Dawn sued Michael to establish legal visitation and custody rights for one weekend per month.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.