A couple in this proceeding was duly married and became the parents of two children. They lived as a family in New York City continuously until September of 1948. In 1950, the man went to Nevada and marries another woman, following a typical Nevada divorce mill constructive service default order. A New York Family Lawyer said he remained in Nevada only about two months after obtaining such order. He left Nevada to transact business in New Jersey.
The woman then filed an action against the man asking for child support according to his means and station in life. Because their children are residing in New York City and the man is again living in New York City, the court has the mandatory jurisdiction to enter an order for their support.
A New York Custody Lawyer said the woman as first wife also questions the legality of the husband’s remarriage and asserts that his second wife is as a matter of law his paramour and, as such, without any legal right to support.
It was proved that the couple are both professional hairdressers and had worked together until the last three or four years before their separation. During such three or four years, the woman had remained at home merely as housewife but in 1950, resumed gainful occupation, her earnings as a beauty parlor receptionist being now a gross of $60 a week and a net of $54.30.
In 1950 at state of New Jersey, the man was personally served there with process instituting an action in which the woman requested for a decision that the man be ordered to desist and refrain from a trial. In that action a judgment in favor of the woman was entered against the man.
Consequently, the court of New Jersey ordered and decided that the said order of absolute divorce is granted.
A Queens Family Lawyer said the man, in turn, argues that the New Jersey decision by its terms has no extraterritorial effect. He further contends, in disregard of the clear and express language of the New Jersey decision that it must be borne in mind that the New Jersey action was never an action inquiring into the jurisdiction of the Nevada court.
A duly introduced copy of that Nevada divorce order constituted presumptive evidence of the jurisdictional facts entitling it to full faith and credit in the court.
Consequently, the court order is therefore based on $75 a week net, subject to an application for an increase after a period long enough to be fairly indicative and subject also to other modification, upwards or downwards, from time to time, pursuant to family court according to the customary practice of the court.
Based on records, a Queens Custody Lawyer said the woman’s earnings are not relevant to the man’s obligation to his children. For, the primary duty of support of minor offspring is cast on the father, regardless of any resources of the mother and it is a duty measured by the child’s needs in relation to the father’s ability to provide and station in life and not merely at the low subsistence level of public charge budgets.
For the foregoing reasons the court finds that the man is chargeable with the support of the wife and the two children named in the petition according to the man’s means and on a separate maintenance basis and he is therefore hereby ordered and directed to pay into the court for their support the sum of $30 a week, each and every week.
The woman’s application for an undertaking is denied, however, in the event of the man’s default in compliance with the order. In addition, there might be an inconsistency between the man’s request for an order of protection and his contention that the woman is no longer his spouse.
When a couple faces trouble or misunderstanding, their children are the first persons who get affected by the conflict. They may be resistant to changes inside the home. If you are a parent who needs legal guidance, the Bronx County Family Lawyers or Bronx County Divorce Attorneys can offer you appropriate services. However, if you need assistance about your child’s custody, seek help from the Bronx County Child Custody Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.