Child Support

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.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Ex-Wife Seeks to Relocate Children to Different State

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a husband filed an appeal from an order of the court upon a motion by the wife for permission to relocate with the child to the State of Virginia and his motion to enjoin her relocation and to change custody, however, denied his application for an in-camera interview between the court and the child. A New York Family Lawyer said the man also appealed from the orders of the same court which denied his motion to enjoin the former wife from relocating with the child and for the transfer of child custody to him. He also appealed for the granted motion of the court for his wife for permission to relocate and the awarded custody of the child to the mother and from the awarded counsel fees and expenses to the wife.

The parties were married and filed for their divorced. They had one son and their separation agreement provided for joint custody with each having physical custody of the child during alternating weeks, until the child’s fifth birthday or until he enters kindergarten. Thereafter and for the next three years, the mother was to have weekday custody of the child during the school year and the father was to have custody every weekend. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that after the child’s eighth birthday or when he entered the third grade, the custody arrangement would be reversed in which the father would have weekday custody during the school year and the mother having custody on the weekends. During the summers, the parent with weekday custody would have custody on the weekends and vice versa.

Moreover, the separation agreement also provided that in the event that such a move becomes necessary, either parent shall have the absolute right to relocate out of New York State to another geographical area, including, but not limited to Boston or Washington, so long as the new residence of that parent is within a one hour direct flight time to or from New York, exclusive of ground travel, plus one hour of ground travel to or from each airport and the residence of each parent, without causing a modification of the custody provisions.

Published on: June 25, 2012

Plaintiff Claims Order for Protection was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

In consolidated proceedings in accordance with the Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the man appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court which, among other things, adjudged him to be in violation of an order of protection and sentenced him to 15 days of incarceration in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, and as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, as denied his application for sole child custody of the couple, or alternatively, increased visitation.

A New York Family Lawyer said Article 6 of the Family Court Act has the authority to make initial child custody and visitation awards. It also may modify existing orders, unless a judgment of divorce retains sole jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. While Article 6 of the Family Court Act gives Family Court jurisdiction over child custody, the substantive law of child custody remains embodied in case law.

Article 6 further confers the Family Court jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings. The Surrogate’s Court has concurrent jurisdiction for guardianship, and Family Court can grant only guardianship of the person, while Surrogate’s Court can grant guardianship of the person and guardianship of the property.

Published on: June 21, 2012

Court Determines Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A married couple was having marital problems. The husband left his wife and his daughter when he left their apartment in May 1981. From that time, the wife had custody of their daughter.

A New York Family Lawyer said the wife continued to have custody over their child during the divorce proceedings she instituted against her husband when the family court granted her temporary custody over their child while her application for divorce was being heard. She asked to an order granting her custody over their child and for the payment of maintenance and child support.

During the course of the divorce proceedings, the husband also applied that instead of being given visitation rights, he be granted custody over their child. The only question before the family court then was who between the mother and the father should be given custody over their child.

Published on: June 18, 2012

Court Decides on Relocation of Parent in Shared Custody Arrangemet

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The parties were divorced in 2004. The parties had joint legal custody of their children with the mother having physical custody and the father having certain rights of parenting time. A New York Family Lawyer said at the time of the divorce, the parties were living in Albany, New York, having relocated together from Long Island. Immediately after the divorce was finalized, the parties continued to live together for financial reasons but eventually moved into separate apartments in Albany with the children living with the mother. The father exercised his parenting rights during this time, though the extent to which he did so is in dispute.

Sometime after, the mother met her current husband, a resident of South Carolina, in an online chat room and began a long distance relationship which resulted in one of them traveling once every few months to see the other. At other times they would both travel and meet somewhere in the middle. In 2005, the mother had a hysterectomy which she blamed for causing her to lose her job. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the loss of her job and the father’s alleged failure to provide regular child support placed her in dire financial straits which she believed could only be remedied by relocating to South Carolina where, aside from her current husband, her mother and sister resided.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Court Rules on Common Law Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever people attempt to defraud another, it is a criminal situation, however, when married people defraud each other, it is somehow worse. A New York Family Lawyer said in some cases that reach the Family Court, the lines that define right and wrong can become blurred. This is what happens when people attempt to circumvent any system for their own personal gain.

In 1935, a woman from Turkey and her husband ran a business in Atlanta, Georgia where they purchased oriental carpets from an Iraqi man who was born of Jewish parents. The relationship between the parties was amicable and provided a good working base for all involved. In 1941, the Iraqi man was returning to New York after a sales trip to meet with the couple in Atlanta when he had a bad traffic accident near Folkston, Georgia. Following the accident, the Iraqi man was taken to a hospital in Folkston and then transferred to Emory University Hospital for further treatment. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the Turkish woman spent many hours assisting the Iraqi man in his recovery. As a result of this close connection, the two developed a strong friendship. When he recovered, the man asked the woman if she was interested in running one of his Hotels in Miami Beach, Florida. She agreed and moved to Miami. In 1945, she divorced her husband and lived in a suite at the hotel that she managed for the Iraqi man.

They soon began a more intimate relationship. The man would visit her frequently at the hotel and was known to sometimes stay over with her at the hotel. In November of 1945, a few months following her divorce, the man bought a house in Miami Beach, Florida and told the woman to redecorate it in her own taste since it would be their marital home. The woman proceeded to redecorate and renovate the house to meet her qualifications for it. In December of 1945, the woman collected the man from the airport after he flew down from New York. They drove to the house where he told her that he loved only her and that he wanted her to be with him for life. She agreed and the following day, the went to the hotel and informed the staff that they had married.