Frank M. v. Siobahn N.

Because I believe that Family Court neither abused its discretion nor exceeded its statutory authority in imposing nominal costs and a nominal sanction against petitioner’s counsel, Susan Crowe, I am compelled to dissent. The exigent circumstances surrounding the questioned custody of the newborn child of petitioner and respondent Siobahn N. (hereinafter respondent) are apparent. Moreover, the propriety of Crowe’s decision to proceed by order to show cause is not in dispute. Rather, it is Crowe’s conduct, and that of her law partner, after the filing of the application (ostensibly ex parte)…