Opinion ID: 2587
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Question Certified

Text: Under New York law and Second Circuit Local Rule § 0.27, we may certify to the New York Court of Appeals determinative questions of New York law [that] are involved in a case pending before [us] for which no controlling precedent of the Court of Appeals exists. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, § 500.27(a) (2008). This process provides us with a valuable device for securing prompt and authoritative resolution of questions of state law. Briggs Ave., LLC v. Ins. Corp. of Hannover, 516 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The parties' briefing and our own research have not uncovered controlling precedent from the New York Court of Appeals as to whether the biological and non-custodial parent of a child retains the right to participate in decisions pertaining to the education of the child where (1) the custodial parent is granted exclusive custody of the child and (2) the divorce decree and custody order are silent as to the right to control education decisions. In Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 (1981), a non-custodial parent sued to enjoin the custodial parent from leaving the state to take up residence in Las Vegas, Nevada. Id. at 173-74, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377. The separation agreement at issue in the case gave the non-custodial parent broad visitation rights, of which the non-custodial parent regularly availed himself. Id. at 173, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377. The court ruled that the custodial parent's planned move impermissibly interfered with these visitation rights and upheld the appellate division's injunction prohibiting the move. In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Meyer wrote to express his agreement with the result on the facts and in the posture of th[e] case, but also added that the majority gave too little consideration to the principle ... that it is the right of the custodial parent, absent controlling contrary provisions in a separation agreement, to determine the child's secular education program and religious education program. Id. at 177, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 (internal citation omitted). Though Judge Meyer's statement suggests that custodial parents retain the right to control the child's educational program absent a controlling provision in the custody order or divorce decree, it was made in a concurrence and, therefore, is not controlling precedent in New York. In De Luca v. De Luca, 202 A.D.2d 580, 609 N.Y.S.2d 80 (App. Div.2d Dep't 1994), a case where the non-custodial parent was concerned about the child's exposure to the mother's choice of religion, the court stated that [w]hether the subject matter is religion, health care, or education, absent an agreement, the court will not interfere with the custodial parent's decisions regarding the children's upbringing. Id. 202 A.D.2d 580, 609 N.Y.S.2d at 81. Similarly in Stevenot v. Stevenot, 133 A.D.2d 820, 520 N.Y.S.2d 197 (App. Div.2d Dep't 1987), the court refrained from interfering with the custodial parent's religious education decisions, finding that, absent an agreement between the divorcing parents, the custodial parent is the proper party to determine the children's religious training. Id. 133 A.D.2d 820, 520 N.Y.S.2d at 198. And again in De Beer v. De Beer, 162 A.D.2d 165, 556 N.Y.S.2d 299 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990), the court refused to interfere with the custodial parent's choice of religious education for the child, noting that religious education decisions are appropriately left in the hands of the custodial parent absent compelling circumstances. Id. 162 A.D.2d 165, 556 N.Y.S.2d at 300. In Parrinelli v. Parrinelli, 138 Misc.2d 49, 524 N.Y.S.2d 159 (Sup.Ct.1988), the court said that where an enforceable agreement controlling the rights to make educational decisions is absent and where the custodial and non-custodial parent disagree, the choice rests with ... the custodial parent. Id. 138 Misc.2d 49, 524 N.Y.S.2d at 161. The position of the New York State Commissioner of Education appears to be in line with the thinking of these cases. In an opinion dismissing a non-custodial parent's appeal of the denial of a hearing pursuant to the IDEA, the agency reasoned that [b]y granting custody of a child to only one of the child's parents, a court necessarily determines that the custodial parent shall be responsible for decisions relative to the child's welfare, including education. Appeal of Carubia, 25 Ed. Dept. Rep. 256, 258 (Jan. 14, 1986), E.H.L.R. Dec. 507:468 (SEA, N.Y.1986). Finally, New York treatises appear to have adopted the New York Appellate Division's pronouncements as the law, stating that when exclusive custody has been awarded to one parent, the custodial parent, absent an enforceable agreement, has the exclusive authority to decide matters of the child's education. 45 N.Y. Jur.2d Dom. Rel. § 516; see also 2-34 N.Y. Practice Guide: Domestic Relations § 34.01 (an award of custody to one party traditionally accords that party physical custody, i.e., actual possession and control of a child ... as well as decision-making authority). Although the above lower court authority strongly indicates that under New York law a non-custodial parent does not retain the right to participate in education decisions for the child, there is no controlling New York Court of Appeals authority on point. While we might normally accept the unanimous decisions of two departments of the Appellate Division as sufficiently determinative to allow us to decide this case, we are reluctant to take that final step in the absence of a Court of Appeals pronouncement because the ruling has broad implications affecting the custodial arrangements in New York  a matter of paramount state concern. Because the question is determinative of the case before us and is one for which no controlling precedent exists, we choose to certify the question to the New York Court of Appeals. QUESTION CERTIFIED: Whether, under New York law, the biological and non-custodial parent of a child retains the right to participate in decisions pertaining to the education of the child where (1) the custodial parent is granted exclusive custody of the child and (2) the divorce decree and custody order are silent as to the right to control such decisions.