Q: Subject Matter Jurisdiction is exclusive to SupremeCourt/(IDV part)order(orig)? Does Fam Court have competence to modify

A: No.

A: No. If the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction, only it can modify its own judgment or order. The Family Court may not.

A: This question is fertile soil for a harvest of information regarding the reduction in legal rights held by parents. The integrated domestic violence court in each New York county is an assembly of family, supreme, and criminal court jurisdiction under one judge in one courtroom. Such a concentration of power must be unconstitutional as our system of government is based on distributed powers. Nonetheless, the voting public is none the wiser and government can create any apparatus it wants to accomplish whatever objective it wants. The ends justify the means.

In spite of internet writings to the contrary, family court is an established statutory court with co-equal powers of the Supreme Court in cases where a modification or enforcement of an order regarding a marital child is involved. This means that unless marital couples opt out of any family court intervention, then only the Supreme Court hear applications to modify or enforce. Marital couples do not opt in to family court jurisdiction. Non-marital couples do not have access to IDV. They hash out their abuse claims in family court only.

Any Supreme Court will avoid prohibiting intervention by family court unless very unusual facts are involved. We cannot imagine what those may be because we are given precious little as to the facts of this asker's case. One hypothetical may be that a parent's behavior with a child is so extreme as to require the observation of only the Supreme Court judge.

Returning to the IDV court, the clerk of court will spot domestic violence as a claim made in a divorce filing, and send the parties to IDV. Once there, the judge will not transfer out portions of the matter to other courts. The IDV can calculate child support, impose custody or no custody, convict parties, divide property, and grant a divorce.

The judge will be one sided amplifying the victim's case. The judge will amplify the victim's assertions on the witness stand. The judge will assign an attorney for the child and amplify the child's stance. The judge will trivialize the perpetrator's statements. The judge will craft procedure so as to prejudice the perpetrator's case. For example, in a criminal matter, the judge must conduct an inquiry of whether the state and the defendant have exchanged discovery and acknowledge its receipt. The IDV judge may only inquire that the prosecution has produced and shared discovery while not inquiring of the defense that they received it.

As for the asker's question about subject matter jurisdiction, the asker appears to be trying to outsmart the apparatus. He may do so, however, the powers that occupy the bench are at their pleasure to deny the asker's motions no matter how correct they are. All of this is geared to shame and sanction the perpetrator into agreeing that he violated the law (hurt the victim), and accept a punishment perhaps in the form of a conviction, a fine, and reduced visitation with his child. This is justice by example-setting: the punishment fits the politics.

Women know to make these allegations to limit a father' access to his children, and once men get smart, they'll learn to make the same allegations again their women. The first to strike always wins. With these points in mind, perhaps the asker must modify his many questions in light of the reality that the judge is the victim's judge.