Child Support

Published on: August 13, 2012

Plaintiff Asks for an Increase in Support

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. The plaintiff in the matter is Ethel Phillips and the defendant is Gilbert L. Phillips. The plaintiff is seeking a separation from the defendant, who is her husband. Ms. Phillips alleges that the defendant has treated her cruelly and fails to provide fro her. The defendant denies these allegations and has entered a counterclaim seeking an annulment from the marriage. The defendant states that their marriage should be annulled because the plaintiff was still married to another individual at the time the couple was married.

Case Background

On the last day of March in the year 1950, the plaintiff obtained a divorce from her husband, Mr. Moss. This divorce was obtained in the state of Georgia in the Superior Court of Richmond County. At the time of the divorce the plaintiff stated that she had been a resident of Georgia for over a year before instituting the action for divorce. However, the plaintiff was actually still a New York state resident at that time. A New York Family Lawyer said he had only been in Georgia for a couple of days and visited the state for the purpose of obtaining the divorce and no other reason. She had not established a residency in the state of Georgia. Moss, the plaintiff’s husband acknowledged the action in the Georgia court and did not contest the divorce. The decree from the Georgia court states that the divorce was granted to the plaintiff on the 31st of March, 1950. After the divorce took place, the plaintiff’s ex-husband Moss took on another spouse.

Published on: August 11, 2012

Custody Battles are Damaging to Children

by Stephen Bilkis

Jurisdiction is an important issue in child custody hearings. Often the parents of the child live in different court jurisdictions, or even different states. A New York Family Lawyer said the courts must work with the parents to determine which court system will have jurisdiction over the matters that are involved in each case. In one Suffolk County case, the parents’ divorce was finalized in the Nassau County Family Court in 2002. Following that action, the mother was granted primary custody of the child of the union. She relocated to Suffolk County.

Since the time that the divorce was finalized and the mother moved to Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Family Court has handled at least one motion to adjust the visitation schedule that the couple had in place to manage the visitation of the child. In 2008, the father of the child made a motion to the Nassau County Family Court to change primary custody over to him. The mother filed a cross-motion to deny the father’s motion and to have all jurisdiction over future motions transferred to the Suffolk County Family Court. The mother maintains that the father has moved to Suffolk County in the years since the divorce was finalized. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that means that at the time of this particular motion, the mother, father, and the child are all living in Suffolk County and no one is living in Nassau County.

The Supreme Court reviewed the motions and determined that the proper venue of any motions in this case would be the Suffolk County Family Court. They contend that since all concerned parties are living in Suffolk County, it only makes sense that the court system to handle their case should also be Suffolk County. The court also appointed a Law Guardian for the child.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Mother Requests to Move Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody disputes are always difficult for everyone involved. They become even more difficult when a traumatic incident occurs that changes all of the rules. A New York Family Lawyer said that whenever a couple divorces, the custody of the children becomes of paramount concern. If one parent gets primary custody and lives a great distance away, it can pose a hardship on the other parent to maintain a meaningful relationship with the children. It is always the goal of the New York Family Court to take action that is in the best interests of the children. Toward this goal, the New York Family Court seeks to instill in the primary custodial parent that it is essential that the children are not used as leverage against the non-custodial parent. The children will benefit from continuing a positive relationship with both of their parents. Sometimes, this problem is enhanced by traumatic circumstances that have a strong emotional impact on the parents and the children who are involved.

One such case began when a couple were married in 1980 in Florida. By 1986 they had determined that they could not live together and were divorced. They had three children at the time of the divorce. Full custody was awarded to the mother in Florida. In 1988, a man who knew the mother only by acquaintance broke in to her home and kidnapped the two daughters. He raped and tortured the little girls. One of the girls died as a result of the attack. The other one was seriously injured.

Following this incident, the father filed a motion with the Florida Court to change the primary physical custody of the children to him. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the petition was granted and the children moved with their father to Rochester, New York. The father had promised the court under order of the court that he would continue to take the surviving child to counseling to help her deal with the trauma associated with the rape and death of her sister. The mother was granted liberal contact and access to the children.

Published on: August 6, 2012

Noncustodial Parent Objects to Relocation of Children

by Stephen Bilkis

The problems that arise when a family is divorced are endless. Not only do the parents separate and create new homes, but the children have to divide their time between two parents. When a divorce is finalized, a visitation schedule is created. A New York Family Lawyer said parents are required to create a visitation schedule and the courts ensure that the parents remain in compliance with the orders of the court. However, life is rarely a stagnant existence. Changes occur in every person’s life that can affect the application of a visitation schedule.

One of the most common changes to affect a parent’s life involves having to move to another state. Whether a person has to relocate for business, or personal reasons, if that person is divorced with children, the visitation schedule will have to be reviewed by the court. In fact, if the parent who is moving to another state is the primary custodial parent, it can even affect the move. A primary custodial parent must apply to the state of New York family court for permission to move with the child. The courts of New York strive to ensure that the best interests of the child or children is the most important issue that must be addressed.

When the non-custodial parent objects to the move, things can get even more complex. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said on one case that was heard before the New York State Supreme Court of Nassau County on October 26, 1998, a mother was transferred to a different state and applied to the court for permission to take her child with her. Her ex-husband objected and countered the motion with one of his own. His motion was to have primary custody of the child transferred to him and a new visitation arrangement drawn up so that the mother could have limited visitation. On January 29, 1998, the mother’s request to move with the child to the state of Florida was denied. The mother had to fight for ten months to have her case heard on appeal. Ten months is a very long time when your job and your ability to keep your child is at stake. Finally in October, the Supreme Court of Nassau County prepared to hear her appeal of the trial court’s decision to deny her request to move with the child to Florida.

Published on: August 4, 2012

The parties were both born in Albania

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts

The parties were both born in Albania. On 14 December 1989, plaintiff first moved to the United States after receiving a green card through the American Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. In 1997, he became a United States citizen. Plaintiff lived and worked in the United States continuously from late 1989 until the date of the commencement of the herein action, only returning to Albania for brief vacations over the years, approximately the first six years of the marriage. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is 48 years of age and defendant is 36 years of age. Plaintiff first returned to Albania in 1992, at which time the parties began to date. The parties became engaged when plaintiff returned to Albania for a six week visit in 1993.

Sometime in September 1995, the parties got married in a civil ceremony in Albania after a two year engagement. Defendant lived with plaintiff’s family after the marriage but plaintiff returned to the United States where he was working six weeks after the marriage.

Published on: August 3, 2012

On 20 February 2001, the subject child who was at that time 10 months old

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 February 2001, the subject child who was at that time 10 months old, had been hospitalized with a burn mark to her right eye, burn marks below her right cheek, a one-inch burn mark across the back of her neck, bruises and burn marks below her nose, three fractured ribs, cuts and scab marks on her hands and arms, cuts behind and inside her ears, cuts and scabs on both the soles of her feet, a circular mark on the top of her head, bruises to the left side of her face and swollen hands. A New York Family Lawyer said respondents failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the child’s injuries. The petition also noted that, in November 2000, when she was only six months old, she had sustained a dislocated and fractured elbow, and respondents failed to seek medical attention for her until two days after the injury had been sustained.

On 30 April 2002, the child was adjudicated abused under the Family Court Act after a fact-finding hearing and custody of the subject child has been removed from the parents. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said as a result, her three siblings were adjudicated derivatively abused and parental custody was also removed.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Case Filed on Behalf of Child who was at that time 10 months old

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 February 2001, a New York Family Lawyer said the subject child who was at that time 10 months old, had been hospitalized with a burn mark to her right eye, burn marks below her right cheek, a one-inch burn mark across the back of her neck, bruises and burn marks below her nose, three fractured ribs, cuts and scab marks on her hands and arms, cuts behind and inside her ears, cuts and scabs on both the soles of her feet, a circular mark on the top of her head, bruises to the left side of her face and swollen hands. Respondents failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the child’s injuries. The petition also noted that, in November 2000, when she was only six months old, she had sustained a dislocated and fractured elbow, and respondents failed to seek medical attention for her until two days after the injury had been sustained.

On 30 April 2002, the child was adjudicated abused under the Family Court Act after a fact-finding hearing and custody of the subject child has been removed from the parents. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said as a result, her three siblings were adjudicated derivatively abused and parental custody was also removed.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Family Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody and visitation issues in divorce actions are traumatic events in the lives of the parents and the children who are affected by the court’s decisions. Many people panic when they file for divorce and fear the loss of custody of their children. When parents panic and make bad decisions as they relate to custody issues, they can adversely affect the outcome of their custody dispute. A New York Family Lawyer said that rather than panic and remove the children from the state, it is always better to discuss your options with a qualified attorney who can fight for your rights legally. When parents abduct their children to avoid losing custody of them, they just about guarantee that they will lose custody of the child.

In June of 1979, a New York woman panicked during a divorce action and absconded with her son to Arizona. The lived in hiding in Arizona until they were discovered in 1981 and the child was returned to New York and placed in the sole custody of his father. At that point, the father filed a petition to have sole custody of the child and restrict any visitation that the mother would have no visitation with the child because he fears that she will attempt to kidnap the boy again. The court Special Term declined to modify the judgment of divorce to prevent the mother from visiting with the boy. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the father made a motion to the Supreme Court to modify the decree. The mother countered that motion with her own motion to prevent a modification of the decree.

The court discovered that the mother had filed a motion with the Family court in Arizona. The first decision that became necessary was which court would have jurisdiction over the dispute. The New York Family Court had first declined to make any modification to the motion for a divorce decree because they felt that Arizona should have the jurisdiction over the custody dispute and that New York would be an inconvenient location to try the case. The Supreme Court disagreed. They contend that it was inappropriate for the New York Family Court to deny hearing the case and modifying the divorce decree. The original documents had been prepared in New York. New York was the registered home state of the child. The child had only been removed from New York during an illegal action. Therefore, Arizona courts should never have had any type of jurisdiction over the case at all.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Father Contends Child Support Not Being Used for Child

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Family Court can become creative when it must deal with diverse personalities in divorce decrees. This is especially true when the divorce decree includes a custody issue with the parents of minor children. There are almost as many options for customizing custody decrees as there are people who must be governed by them.

A New York Family Lawyer said sometimes, parents are not happy with the choices that the courts make for them in regard to the custody arrangement prepared by the courts. When that happens, one or both of the parents can become belligerent about the inaction of the orders. It becomes the court’s duty to enforce the decree and the custody orders that are attached to it. When one or both of the parents of a minor child do not comply with the court orders, the courts will issue penalties that can be quite harsh.

In one case from New York, a mother was not being compliant about allowing her ex-husband the visitation that the court had ordered for him. After she failed to present the child for visitation on several occasions, the court ordered that she would have to deal with the consequences. The court ordered that one half of her child support payments from her ex-husband would have to go into an escrow account with her attorney. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that money would then be used solely for the purpose of enhancing the relationship between the father and the child. In order for her to obtain funds from that escrow account, she would have to present an accounting to the court.

Published on: June 28, 2012

Court Discusses the Rights of a Non-Marital Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

On October 15, 1999, a child was born between the petitioner mother and respondent father. The respondent father acknowledged his paternity and his name was placed on child’s birth certificate. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent visited regularly and contributed to the child’s support for 18 months. However, the parties never married or lived together because respondent has a family of his own. Accordingly, in the spring 2001, the parties’ relationship ended, although respondent continued to call the petitioner to discuss the child during the months that followed. During the years that follow, respondent father did not visit nor give support to the child.

The mother then met and married her current husband. The mother moved out of her apartment but submitted a change of address notification form to the United States Post Office. She changed her home telephone number but kept the same cell phone number, the same job, the same work address and the same telephone number at work. The mother notified her landlord about her move.

Thereafter, the respondent father received a notice from the petitioner mother’s intent for stepparent adoption. Respondent father filed a petition seeking visitation rights and opposed the adoption. In his petition, respondent alleged that he did everything for the child. On 2006, the petitioner mother and her husband filed a stepparent adoption.