## Facts

- Emily K., a minor, was in an intermittent boyfriend-girlfriend relationship with Luis J.; both were 13 years old when the family-offense petition was filed.
- Emily and Luis had known each other since kindergarten and dated on and off from fifth through eighth grade.
- Early in the relationship, they held hands, kissed, texted, and talked by phone.
- By sixth grade, Luis was contacting Emily frequently (multiple calls or texts per day) and became jealous, controlling, and isolating.
- Emily testified that, at school, Luis made her touch his erect penis in front of other students.
- Emily also testified that Luis put his hand down her shirt and touched her breasts without her permission.
- The two largely stopped dating during seventh grade, but resumed contact late that year.
- In eighth grade, Luis asked to meet; Emily testified they met twice.
- During the first eighth-grade encounter, Emily testified she reluctantly performed oral sex because she believed Luis would leave her alone if she did.
- Emily testified that during an encounter involving intercourse, Luis initially stopped when she asked him to stop, but then continued.
- After these events, Emily stopped seeing Luis; she later experienced suicidal thoughts and disclosed the incidents to her mother.
- Emily’s mother commenced a Family Court Act article 8 family-offense proceeding seeking an order of protection against Luis.
- After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that Emily and Luis had been in an “intimate relationship” under Family Ct Act § 812(1)(e) and that Luis committed the family offenses of forcible touching and sexual misconduct.
- After disposition, Family Court issued a two-year order of protection in Emily’s favor.
- On appeal, Luis did not contest the factual allegations; he argued that Emily’s mother lacked standing to file on Emily’s behalf and that article 8 did not apply to him because of his age.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Family Ct Act § 812(1) to hear an article 8 family-offense proceeding between 13-year-old dating partners.
2. Whether the parties’ on-and-off adolescent boyfriend-girlfriend relationship qualified as an “intimate relationship” under Family Ct Act § 812(1)(e).
3. Whether a parent may file (or “stand in”) to commence an article 8 family-offense proceeding on behalf of a minor child.
4. Whether article 8 relief is unavailable when the respondent is below the age of criminal responsibility and cannot be prosecuted for the Penal Law offenses named as family offenses.
5. Whether the record supported Family Court’s findings of forcible touching and sexual misconduct and the resulting two-year order of protection.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the order granting the petition and the two-year order of protection.
- The court treated the central question as one of jurisdiction under Family Ct Act § 812(1), which may be raised on appeal because it concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Family Court properly exercised jurisdiction because the proof showed an on-and-off dating relationship with repeated personal contact over multiple school years, bringing the parties within the “intimate relationship” category of § 812(1)(e).
- The respondent’s age did not bar Family Court from finding that his conduct constituted family offenses or from issuing civil protective relief under article 8, even if he could not be criminally prosecuted due to age.
- The appellate court declined to disturb Family Court’s credibility determinations and found the proof supported the findings that Luis committed forcible touching and sexual misconduct.
- Given those findings, the two-year order of protection was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Family Court is a court of limited statutory authority; it may hear an article 8 family-offense case only if the parties fit within Family Ct Act § 812(1)’s “members of the same family or household” categories, including persons who are or have been in an “intimate relationship” under § 812(1)(e).
- Subject-matter jurisdiction is not waived by a party’s failure to object in Family Court and may be raised at any time.
- Whether an “intimate relationship” exists depends on the facts, including the nature of the connection, frequency of interaction, and duration; it is not limited to adult relationships or to relationships defined only by sex.
- Article 8 authorizes civil remedies (including orders of protection) based on conduct that would constitute listed Penal Law offenses; the availability of civil relief does not depend on whether the respondent is eligible for criminal prosecution.
- On review of fact-finding in Family Court, the Appellate Division gives strong weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations when supported by the hearing record.

## Conclusion

In Emily K. v. Luis J., the Appellate Division affirmed a two-year Family Court order of protection issued after findings that a 13-year-old respondent committed sexual misconduct and forcible touching against a 13-year-old girl with whom he had an intermittent boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. The court held that the relationship qualified as an “intimate relationship” under Family Ct Act § 812(1)(e), giving Family Court article 8 jurisdiction, and that the respondent’s youth did not prevent Family Court from granting civil protective relief for conduct that would constitute the specified Penal Law offenses.


Emily K. v. Luis J., 997 N.Y.S. 2d 510 (2014)