Nassau

Published on: April 23, 2012

Court Determines if Insurance in Effect at time of Accident

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is Betty Ann Russell, who is a minor and is represented through her father and her next friend, Fred R. Russell. The appellees in the case are Charles A. Eckert and E.R. Heard and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation, Garnishee-Appellee.

The Appeal

Betty Ann Russell, who is a minor, is appealing a final judgment that was issued by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court after a trial without jury. A New York Family Laywer said the issue of the case was between the plaintiff and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, a corporation.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Court Hears Motion to Relocate

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the issue of relocation first came in to the lower court previously when the father’s motion to hinder his wife from moving was rendered unsettled when a job opportunity that had precipitated her interest in moving did not come to completion.

However, after an extensive evidentiary proceeding, the court granted the mother’s motion to relocate and the mother moved to other country with her daughter. The father’s motion to stay the relocation pending an appeal was denied by the appellate division as the mother and child then remained in the relocated area. In a decision and order, the appellate division reversed the decision and directed the Supreme Court to fix a date for the production of the child in New York.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said subsequently the Supreme Court, with the consent of the parties, determined that the interests of the child would best be served by permitting her to complete the school year in the relocated area. At a court conference, the parties acknowledged that the child was unhappy with her father about being forced to return to his custody in New York. For that reason, it was agreed that the child would return to New York in early July and that thereafter she and her father would participate in a series of therapeutic visitation sessions under the supervision of a clinical psychologist. The plan was to hold two sessions during the week following her arrival and two more sessions during the following week.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Court Determines if they Have Proper Jurisdiction in Family Law Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother, respondent, and the father were married in 1980, which marriage was dissolved by a Florida Judgment of Divorce in 1986. At the time of the divorce, the mother was awarded primary custody of her three children. In 1988 an acquaintance of the mother entered her Florida home and abducted, raped and brutally attacked the two daughters, killing one of them and seriously injuring another. The father petitioned the Florida Court for a change of physical custody, which was granted in an Order and Judgment dated 7 June 1989. That order, inter alia, granted the mother liberal contact and access with the children including an extended summer and Christmas visitation. The father was also required to facilitate continued counseling for the children in Rochester which he failed to do. Counseling for one of the children was discontinued in 1992 and the other child in 1993 upon the father’s contention that it was no longer needed.

The children visited with the mother in Florida during summers of 1990, 1991, and 1993, and for the three Christmas holidays in those years, while residing the remainder of the year with the father in Monroe County, New York. Summer visitation did not occur during the summer of 1994, as the parties agreed to postpone visitation so one of the children could participate in a softball clinic. The mother drove to Monroe County to visit with the children during Christmas 1994, after the father refused to send them to Florida pursuant to their prior agreement. No visit occurred during the summer of 1995. Despite the attempts of the mother and her attorney to arrange a Christmas, 1995 visit, the father refused to allow the mother to speak with the children when she telephoned and refused to permit that visit to occur.

Subsequently, on 18 December 1995, the mother filed a Motion for Contempt against the father in the state of Florida. On 28 May 1996, the father was found in willful contempt of the Florida order. Counseling with the mother and the children was ordered by the Florida Court, as well as visitation during the summer of 1996.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Physician Accused of Performing Illegal Abortions

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is the United States of America. The appellee in the case is Milan Vuitch.

Appeal

Milan Vuitch, the appellee is a licensed physician and was indicted by the District Court in the District of Columbia for the United States District Court. Milan Vuitch was accused of attempting to produce and producing abortions that were in violation of the District of Columbia code Ann 22-201, from the year 1967. A New York Family Lawyer said before the case went to trial the district judge of the case ruled in favor of the defendant and granted a motion to dismiss the case on the bases that the abortion laws in the District of Columbia are to vague. It is this motion for dismissal that is being appealed.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Court Rules on Child Support Calculations

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, child support calculations vary and usually depend on both the parents’ net income, the cost of caring for the child as well as allowance for health maintenance as well as daily needs. Also, most of the time, when a husband and wife separates, animosity is always present and provisions for child support and visitations are always taken for granted. Although a trial court may provide written orders for these, it is important that when two parents divorce, they must continue to be responsible and continue constant communication with their children even after the marriage is formally dissolved. This case, as explained by one of our senior New York Family Lawyers is about awarding reasonable visitation rights to non-custodial parents as well as the proper calculation of their child support.

The parties were joined together in marriage sometime in August 1990 and 16 years later, the wife filed for a divorce wherein she submitted affidavits of her finances and pertinent data for the dissolution of their marriage. It was found that the wife earned a gross monthly income of more than $4800 and that she was entitled to real estate and listed a mortgage to be among the parties’ debts. On the other hand, the husband was found to earn a monthly salary of at least $2300 and lists no assets. He also lists a liability of $20000 in car loans for vehicles that were already foreclosed. In addition, when the hearing was held in a trial court, the final judgment learns that the 12-year-old son was living with the Mother. She testified that the Father was always tardy during custody exchanges and that she was hesitant to let the boy be with the Father because of his unstable living conditions, which involved his current partner taking drugs, and that the Father had a bank statement that had $14000 in deposits, which the Father explained as money given by relatives.

The final judgment then included provisions that would allow the Father to alternating Friday visits from 7 to 11pm and alternating Saturday visits from 12 noon until 10pm. In addition, if the Father arrives late, with a 20-minute grace period, then his visiting access will be waived. Moreover, when the Father has found a “stable” place, then the son will be allowed to sleep over in a separate sleeping area and shall have unsupervised access. The Mother would be allowed to visit if the son sleeps in his Father’s house overnight. In addition, the Mother was awarded child support of up to $560 a month as well as a monthly retroactive support of $250 which will run for 32 months. According to our Nassau County Family Lawyer, looking at these conditions simply showed that they were unreasonable and that they must be revised. Indeed, the Father challenged these conditions found in the final judgment. He questioned the limitations of his rights to visit and the amount that he needs to pay for child support and sought to reverse the decision of the trial court.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Court Rules of Visitation in Light of Parent Promiscuity

by Stephen Bilkis

Children are especially receptive to issues of infidelity committed by one parent against another. More so if the child actually experienced and witnessed first-hand the act of one parent being unfaithful to another. Usually, it takes a long time for a child to forget and forgive a parent’s unfaithfulness. Most of the time, parents don’t think that children are as affected when either of them becomes unfaithful – that they easily forget and carry on with their lives but in truth, it is the other way around. Psychological impact is great among children who think that they have been betrayed, deserted and intentionally harmed by a parent and it will not only take a very long time for them to forget, but might forever cut the ties and relationship that they have with the unfaithful one. This case, as discussed by a New York Family Lawyer, is an example where one of the children witnessed first-hand an inappropriate and hurtful conduct made by their Father.

William and Kathryn French had three children when they divorced 21 years after their marriage. The Father was a stockbroker had an income of over $100,000 in 1980. During that time, this was a lot of money. The Mother, on the other hand, had previously worked in the fashion industry and even as an assistant editor to a fashion magazine. She had two college degrees but by the time of the dissolution of marriage, she was out of work. In May 1981, the Father left the home and his eleven-year-old son moved onto a boat. After a month, the son told the mother about how frequently he observed promiscuous activities that the Father and his girlfriend were doing on the boat. This prompted the mother to file a divorce or dissolution of their marriage.

At the trial court, the Father admitted that he and his girlfriend had performed lovemaking sessions in the boat but he argued that except for one time, they were very careful not to be seen by the children. Apparently, the girlfriend’s two other children were on the boat, too. The Father claimed that he was not aware that the children saw them perform sexual activities. Upon hearing this, the trial court ruled in favor of Mrs. French and she was granted petition for the marriage dissolution, she was also granted the custody of their three minor children and that the Father was prohibited to visit them. However, the trial court based its decision on the fact that the Father seemed insensitive to the pain that he subjected one of his children to and that he seemed unaware that the child felt betrayed and disillusioned by what happened. According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the Mother was further awarded with the full title and ownership of their house with equity given as lump sum alimony and rehabilitative alimony for $2000 monthly for 12 years. In addition, the court ordered the Father to deposit in an IRA or a similar account the sum of $2,000 as permanent alimony. This sum is to be increased to $4000 when the Mother gets employed.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Court Rules on Modification of Custody Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

Modification of child custody cases happen in a lot of court scenarios. In fact, when you seek the counsel of an expert New York Family Lawyer, you would be surprised with the cases that you would hear having such details. A good example would be the need for a mother to modify the child custody order that would enable her to bring her son and her second child to Japan. The couple filed for divorce way back in the 80s and the agreement for custody then was for the daughter to stay with the mother and the son with the father.

The mother of the two kids got remarried with a Lt. Commander in the navy. After some time, her new husband will be assigned in the air base of Japan where he will stay for a total of two years. With their family to be brought with him, the mother thought of taking her son with her and the only way to do this is to request for the court to remove her ex-husband’s custody of their children.

One of the Nassau County Family Lawyers who was familiar with this case attested that this would require the inclusion of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. This only means that the custody of the children involved should always be set best for the welfare and greater interest of the children. The mother fought for her kids in the financial aspect. She proved to court that her level of employment and finances have considerably improved that she is already ready and capable of taking care of her two kids and not just her daughter anymore.

Published on: February 1, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Many families truly honor the presence of grandparents who play a large role too in influencing the younger ones in each family. Besides, there would not be any grandparents day if there are not important, right? However, it might surprise you that there are lots of child visitation rights tackled by a reliable New York family lawyer which include grandparents fighting for their rights to see their grandchildren especially if one of the parents have already passed away. In this case, both parents have not died but are separated instead. This involved the appeal of the maternal grandmother of the child by the name of Mona Chapin against the father Jason Forbes.

The grandmother was first allowed to visit her grandchild of one week during the summer season and about five weekends in a year. But according to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer everything changed when the father of the child started to remarry. After this second wedding, the court found out that he and his new wife are depriving already the visitation rights of the grandmother in the middle part of 2002. In 2003, the mother of the child agreed to give full parental rights and even allowed the stepmother to adopt her own son. But all these decisions were not relayed to the grandmother involved.

When the grandmother knew about the adoption plan, she filed contempt against the father for the shortcoming of not informing her and this according to a Nassau County Family Lawyer. When the general master reviewed the role of the grandmother, they discovered that she was consistent then of fulfilling her visitation rights and that the father truly had a mistake in that point of not informing her. This case then was decided to base it all on whichever would be for the best interest of the child.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Every New York Family Lawyer has somehow encountered the common case of a grandparent seeking for visitation rights of his or her grandchildren. And in some states in the country, it becomes all the more complicated since some laws do not allow such visitation when one of the parents would like their privacy to be respected. The mother of the child involved in this case who was kept unnamed already filed a paternity action for child support from the father but he also sought visitation rights for his own mother.

It is important to note according to the that the child who is a minor was born right out of wedlock. If this is the case, there is a great chance that the child can be allowed to be visited too by the grandparents. But it is the right of any of the parents to not allow this especially when it comes to the aspect of familial privacy. This term about the rights of the parent to raise their kids without others interfering in the way. If there comes a time that they get into a disagreement, it should be taken to court and they will be the one to decide which would be best for the child.

Some researches done by a respected Nasau County Divorce Lawyer that there are cases visitation rights are given to parents only if it would be the best interest for the child involved. And it is very important to note that this scenario would only be allowed if the parents have both left their right for familial privacy by letting the court settle whatever disagreement they may have. But if it is the court’s decision to allow the grandparent to visit regularly, then this does not violate any of the parents’ privacy rights.

Published on: January 26, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In a relationship that ended in June 1991, Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. The two never married, mentioned a New York Family Lawyer. Jenifer Troxel and Gary Troxel are Brad’s parents, making them the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Natalie. Even after the separation and since Brad lived with his parents, he had taken his kids at his house over the weekend to visit. In May 1993, Bad had committed suicide, ending his life. After the death of their son, Mr. and Mrs. Troxel still saw their grandchildren regularly. By October 1993, Ms. Granville told them that she wanted to limit their visit to her daughters to just one short visit per month.

It was December 1993 when Mr. and Mrs. Troxel filed a petition to get visitation to their granddaughters. What they asked for was two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks of visitation each summer. Ms. Granville said she was not against them visiting her children, but the length of the visits and how often is the one that she wanted to limit. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said, Ms. Granville wanted the visit to be once a month only and just for the whole day with no overnight visits. The Superior Court issued an order for visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both petitioning grandparents’ birthdays.

Ms. Granville, at this time already married to Kelly Wynn, filed an appeal with the court. The Court of Appeals sent the appeal back to the Superior Court. Their decision was that the visits were beneficial to the children, Isabelle and Natalie. They considered the standing of Mr. and Mrs. Troxel as part of a large, central, loving family, in an area that will give the children access to their cousins and music. They said that the children should also spend time with their step father’s six other children with their mother and step father.