Child Support

Published on: September 20, 2014

Court Determines if it was an Error Awarding Sole Custody to Petitioner

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a proceeding to determine child custody pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in which the mother cross-petitioned for modification of an order of the Family Court, Bronx County, dated May 2, 1986, granting the father custody of the parties’ daughter, the father appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered August 4, 1989, which, after a hearing, granted permanent custody of the parties’ two children to the mother.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that, by petition dated April 12, 1988, the appellant, a resident of Nassau County, requested legal custody of his son, who was born in 1987. In his petition, he asserted that he had been left with physical custody of his son since March 5, 1988, when the respondent mother “moved to the Bronx by herself”. However, the evidence adduced at the subsequent hearing reveals that the mother took her son with her when she left.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, in her cross petition dated March 29, 1988, the mother confirmed that until March 1988 she resided with the appellant along with their son and their daughter, who was born in 1982. She alleged that she left the appellant’s residence in March and that he refused to allow her to take her daughter with her. She requested modification of a prior order of the Family Court, Bronx County, dated May 2, 1986, pursuant to which custody of the daughter had been awarded to the appellant, and further requested permanent custody of the daughter. On July 27, 1988, the Family Court, Nassau County, granted temporary custody of Christopher to the mother. The daughter remained in the custody of the appellant. After a hearing, the Family Court, in the order appealed from, awarded permanent custody of both children to the mother.

Published on: September 19, 2013

Court Discusses Section 1055 of the Family Law Act

by Stephen Bilkis

It was on August 11, 1998, when a child was found abandoned by police officers in a bedroom of the home of respondent, (the child’s mother). The nine-year-old child had been bound with electrical cords, hooded with a pillowcase tied around his neck, and gagged with a sock stuffed in his mouth and secured by electrical tape wrapped around his face. A New York Family Lawyer said the child’s arms and legs had been tied so that he was forced to remain standing in a cruciform position; he was otherwise naked, and loud music was left playing in the room. The door to the room was taped shut. When discovered, the child had been tied up since August 7, 1998; he was found to have sustained several old and healing cuts and bruises, whip marks, and numerous scars and lacerations.

The Department of Social Services (hereinafter Department) petitioned against respondents, for a determination that the children are abused children. During the trial, the court issued a Fact-Finding Order and an accompanying decision on July 7, 1999. The court determined the facts recounted above and found that petitioner had adequately proven that the child was the victim of abuse perpetuated by respondent caretakers.

As defined by Family Court Act section 1012 (e) (i) and (ii). The said abuse comprised at least four occasions when the child was tied up and numerous occasions when he was whipped and beaten. The court further concluded that petitioner also met the higher burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent repeatedly and severely abused the child. Therefore, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said in addition to the finding of abuse as to both respondents, the court found based upon clear and convincing evidence that the said child was the victim of severe and repeated abuse inflicted by respondent. Hence, an Order of Protection was issued by the court.

Published on: November 5, 2012

Stepfather Seeks to Adopt Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman fell in love in 1976. They moved in together for five years. And their relationship produced a daughter. During this time, the couple used and dealt drugs. Both of them were apprehended and charged with possession of controlled substances. A New York Family Lawyer said the woman pleaded guilty and was put on probation. Since that time, she has been drug-free.

Her husband was imprisoned but was later released on parole. While on parole, he became a fugitive. He left New York and could not be located. He called his wife after a few months and asked her to leave New York and travel to Chicago, Illinois to join him there. The wife refused because it would be breaking the conditions of her probation and it would endanger the life of her daughter. From that time the woman had not had any contact with her husband.

While they were together, the husband supported their child intermittently because his work as a painter was intermittent. When her husband became a fugitive the support ended. The woman was forced to get a job and move in with her mother who took care of her baby while she was away at work.

Published on: October 5, 2012

Court Reviews Order Regarding Father’s Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner and appellant of this case is Reynaldo M. The respondent in the case is Violet F. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This is a case of appeal. A New York Family Lawyer said the appellant, Reynaldo M. is appealing an order that was made in the Family Court of Bronx County by the Referee Annette Louise Guarino. The original order was made on or around the 15th of April in 1010 and granted the petitioner father contact with his child in the form of letters, mail, and gifts and the child was free to initiate telephone contact with the father if she desired.

Case Discussion

When reviewing the record of the case it is found that the lawyer of the father consented to the order and there is no appeal that can be entered on behalf of a consenting party. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the lawyer was familiar with the situation and had represented the father on a number of occasions before this case.

Published on: September 29, 2012

Defendant Contends Right to Adequate Hearing was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with a support proceeding under article 4 of the Family Court Act. The petitioner and respondent in the case is Dorothy Silvestris. The respondent and appellant in the case is Frank Silvestris. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and First Department. The appeal in this case deals with a court order that directs the appellant to pay $30 a week for support of his eleven year old daughter.

Case Background

The proceeding was started in the Family Court of Greene County where the petitioner and the daughter live. The appellant, who is the father of the child lives in Bronx County. The matter was transferred to the Family Court of Bronx County pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law.

Published on: September 14, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case that involves Hector G. as the petitioner versus Josefina P. as the respondent and Josefina P. as the petitioner against Hector G. as the respondent. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County.

Case Questions

A New York Family Lawyer said this particular case raises two different questions in regard to the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. The father in this case argues that title three of the act requires that the court enforce the custody order that was made by the court in the Dominican Republic. The mother contends that this court may assume the jurisdiction over the parental custody case and modify or replace the order that was made in the Dominican Republic.

Published on: September 12, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman had a turbulent romantic relationship that was marked by frequent disagreements. The disagreements resulted in a pattern of a parting of ways, a reconciliation; a revival of love only to end back in disagreements and a parting of ways.

In April 2000 when the man and the woman were living together in New York, the woman gave birth to their common child, a daughter. A New York Family Lawyer said a year later, the woman booted out the man from their shared apartment. That same month, the man filed a petition in the Family Court of New York asking for visitation rights with her natural daughter. Days after the man filed the petition the woman filed her own petition for sole custody of her daughter and permission to relocate to Virginia where, she said she was a permanent resident prior to the birth of her child and that she came to New York only three months before she gave birth. She also claimed that the man was verbally abusive and that he threatened her. The family court issued a temporary order of protection.

Initially, the family court held a hearing to find out if during the pendency of the actions for custody and visitation, the father can be given the privilege of supervised visitation with his daughter. The woman vigorously opposed the granting of supervised visitation rights to the man stating that the man was emotionally unfit as he suffered from depression and that his apartment was too small for her child to visit with her father. The Family Court nevertheless granted the father’s request for temporary visitation rights.

Published on: September 8, 2012

Defendant Claims Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties met in New York, while the defendant (husband) was on a vacation from his employment as a diplomat with the United Nation particularly, a Deputy Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip. At that time, the plaintiff (wife), was newly admitted to the New York bar and employed as an attorney with a law firm.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the defendant transferred to Jerusalem as Director of UNRWA operations. A New York Divorce Lawyer said that the parties maintained a long-distance relationship for a year until the plaintiff terminated her employment in New York and joined the defendant in Jerusalem, where she became a Lecturer and Program Supervisor. For over a year of living together, they married each other at the British Consulate in Jerusalem.

Thereafter, defendant was transferred to Lebanon while the plaintiff had been a working with the United Nations Development program in Jerusalem and continued for a few months more before joining defendant in Lebanon. The parties’ child was born in Beirut, Lebanon.

Published on: September 5, 2012

Visitation Sought by Non-Biological Father

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Respondent is the biological mother (herein the respondent-mother) of six-year old boy (the subject child or the child) conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent-mother and petitioner met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in November 2003, the month before the subject child’s birth. The respondent-mother repeatedly rebuffed petitioner’s requests to become the child’s second parent by means of adoption.

Sometime in the spring of 2006, the relationship between the respondent-mother and petitioner soured and they separated. Thereafter, respondent-mother allowed petitioner to have supervised visits with the child each week on a Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. However, sometime in the spring of 2008, respondent-mother began scaling back the visits. By early May of 2008, she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the child.

Published on: September 3, 2012

Plaintiff Petitions Court for Divorce on the Grounds of Abandonment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 16 January 1981, plaintiff and defendant were married in New York. On 10 September 1983, their daughter was born.

A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant claims that she, plaintiff, and their daughter moved to Israel in about 1987, with the intention of living there permanently. On the other hand, although they purchased an apartment in Israel, plaintiff claims that he had no intention of permanently relocating there and had applied for permanent residency in that country only to obtain government benefits for defendant and their daughter.