Child Support

Published on: April 27, 2012

Court Determines Visitation and Custody Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman met in New York. The man was a resident of Florida. The woman got pregnant and gave birth to a son on August 9, 2007. A New York Family Lawyer said the father stayed in New York at the mother’s apartment for a fortnight after the baby was born. But the father left New York and returned to Florida. He did not disclose any plans to return to New York nor did he have any plans to bring his son to Florida.

Two months after the child was born, the mother filed a case in the Family Court of New York for the sole child custody of her son. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said five months during the pendency of the mother’s petition for sole child custody, the father appeared and filed an application for sole child custody or at least visitation rights.

During the pendency of the mother’s action for child custody, their son remained with her but the father was able to have one-day visits with their son nine times. He was able to get one overnight visit and one weekend visit with their son in New York. And the child was able to stay with his father for one week in Florida.

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Looks to Will to Determine Burial Plan

by Stephen Bilkis

Cressie Carlyle and Ivan Cohen are the appellants in this case and the appellee of the case is the Guardianship of Hilliard Cohen.

The Appeal

The siblings of the departed, Hilliard Cohen are appealing an order from probate court that requires the deceased to be buried in a Florida graveyard next to his spouse of 40 years instead of being buried in the family plot in a cemetery located in New York.

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: April 14, 2012

Court Decides if Child Support Obligations can be Waived

by Stephen Bilkis

Anna O’Connor is the respondent and James G. Curcio is the appellant in this case.

The father is appealing to recover child support payments.

The issue became whether or not child support payments that are due can be waived because of an order of judgment. As long as the obligation to make those payments hasn’t occurred, they can be waived.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Decides if Parent of Emancipated Child Should Receive Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Thomas B. is the respondent and Lydia D. is the appellant.

History

Two parents tried to come to a written agreement where child support payments would be terminated because the child being supported had obtained a full time job. However, economic independence of a child is not enough reason to discontinue required child support payments.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Petitioner Seeks Increase in Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

Maureen K. is the petitioner in this case and James H. is the respondent.

History

In 1995, a motion was filed that aimed to increase the child support payments made by Mr. H from $45 to $106 weekly. Mr. H objected to this order, and a Hearing Examiner was assigned to the issue.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Reviews Child Support Based on CSSA Guidelines

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Ronald A. Usenza and Maura G. Gannon were both respondents and petitioners, while Maura G. Gannon was named only as a respondent.

The father objected to the Findings of Fact and order which occurred after a reversal and remand was issued by the Appellate Division. Now, the Support Magistrate must once again take up the issue and make a ruling on the child support issues based only on information presented in the original petitions from the year 2000, as everything submitted after that point is invalid and must not be taken into account.

History