Brooklyn

Published on: September 7, 2013

Court Referee Claims He Cannot Remain Impartial

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court in 1967 and maintains a law office in. By a petition, petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, brings two charges of professional misconduct against respondent: (1) making false accusations and assertions against a Family Court hearing examiner in a letter; and (2) improperly communicating with the Family Court hearing examiner.

A New York Family Lawyer said after a lengthy hearing, the referee sustained both charges of misconduct and recommended that respondent be censured and that costs be assessed against him. Petitioner moves to confirm the referee’s report. Respondent opposes the motion and seeks dismissal of the charges.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that in December 1990, a resident of Ellenville in Ulster County, met with respondent to discuss a violation of child support petition which had been filed against him in Family Court in Suffolk County where his ex-wife resided. Said client had just appeared, on November 26, 1990, before Suffolk County Family Court hearing examiner in response to an arrest warrant issued after the client failed to appear on the return date of the violation petition. At the hearing, hearing examiner scolded him for his failure to comply with the Family Court’s child support orders and for his failure to appear on the hearing. He also used a threat of jail to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. He advised the client to get an attorney, released him, and scheduled a hearing on the violation petition. he was not accompanied by an attorney at the next hearing. During prior child support appearances before hearing examiner had been represented by retained and assigned attorneys and by a Legal Aid Society.

Published on: August 2, 2013

Father Appeals Child Support Order

by Stephen Bilkis

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated November 4, 1999, which, in effect, confirmed a determination of the same court, dated September 13, 1999, that he had willfully failed to obey an order of the same court, dated December 9, 1996, and thereupon committed him to a term of incarceration of 120 days, unless he purged himself of his contempt by paying the sum of $10,000 towards arrears of child support.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, pursuant to an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 9, 1996, the appellant was obligated to pay $576 per month in child support. The appellant allegedly has not made any payment under that order, and the Commissioner of Social Services filed a violation of child support order petition. A hearing was conducted on September 13, 1999, although the appellant was not represented by counsel and was not advised of his right to have counsel present. A Suffolk Family Lawyer said that, the Hearing Examiner found the appellant guilty of a willful violation of the support order, and on November 4, 1999, the Family Court denied his objections, confirmed the Hearing Officer’s findings, and committed the appellant to a term of incarceration. A Suffolk Child Support Lawyer said that, the appellant contends that he was not properly notified of his right to counsel and therefore his consent to go forward at the hearing was not given knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

The issue in this case is whether court erred in citing the father in contempt for not paying the ordered child support.

Published on: July 7, 2013

Court Rules on Tragic Death of Infant

by Stephen Bilkis

At shortly after 1:00 a.m., an officer and his partner went to an apartment in response to a radio report of a person in distress. A New York Family Lawyer said outside the building, they were joined by two other police officers. In front of the building, the officers met a woman, who stated that her cousin, had a baby and the baby, who was up in the apartment, had died

A New York Custody Lawyer said the woman led them up to the apartment, where they met the offender’s grandaunt. One of the officers directly moved into a bedroom where he saw the offender resting on one bed and the baby, wrapped in a towel, on the other bed. A garbage bag containing what appeared to be the afterbirth was near the baby’s body. The officer assesses the baby’s pulse and felt nothing. The emergency medical services arrived shortly afterward. Since there was a dead infant, the officer was obliged to contact a detective supervisor, the crime scene unit and the district attorney’s office.

The officer did not ask the offender further questions aside from asking her how she felt. In the investigation, the officer testified that the offender remained in the bedroom from the time of his arrival until she was later taken to the hospital. The officer also asserted that the offender was not restrained in the apartment, was not under arrest and she was not even arrested the following day.

Published on: July 5, 2013

Court Determines if Mother is Unfit Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 8, 2010, ACS (Administration for Children’s Services) filed petitions against a mother alleging that her six children were neglected children pursuant to Family Court Act. At that time, the youngest child was a new-born and the oldest child, was 16 years old. Five of the children were living with their mother in New York City having recently relocated from Washington, D.C. A 14 year old daughter had returned to Washington D.C., after coming to New York City briefly with her siblings when they relocated.

A New York Family Lawyer said the petitions alleged that the respondent mother failed to provide the children with proper supervision and guardianship. Specifically, the petitions alleged that the school-age children were not enrolled in school in New York City during the 2010 2011 academic year until October 14, 2010. Additionally, the petitions alleged that the respondent misused marijuana; that she gave birth with a positive toxicology for marijuana and that she was not participating in a drug treatment program. A fact-finding hearing was conducted before the Court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the ACS called two witnesses on their direct case, the caseworker and the respondent mother. In addition ACS introduced a number of documents into evidence. These included oral report transmissions dated November 3, 2010 and November 4, 2010 as well as the hospital records for the mother and the baby.

Published on: January 19, 2013

Plaintiff Contends Husband’s Estate Undervalued in Divorce Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a legal malpractice case being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in New York County. The plaintiff, SH, is seeking to recover damages against the defendant, LG, for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. The defendant has moved for an order to dismiss the complaints that have been made by the plaintiff. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant argues that the issues are time-barred and that the complaint does not state a cause of action and a complete defense is available through documentary evidence. In response the move made by the defendant, the plaintiff has made a cross motion to amend her complaint.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the defendant represented her from 2004 through the spring of 2007. The representation was in regard to her divorce from her husband, CH. The plaintiff states that while handling the divorce proceedings the defendant failed to conduct an adequate discovery of the assets of CH and failed to adequately analyze the entire estate of the marriage. The plaintiff alleges that this failure caused the marital estate to be undervalued and resulted in the plaintiff settling the divorce on unfavorable terms. She further states that the child support payments that are made by LG are inadequate as a result.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Issue When Parent Moves Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Michael Reed and Judy Mast were married. While they were married, they had a son, Jason. About four year into the marriage, the two had problems with their marriage and got a divorce. Mrs. Mast and Jason moved to a different location, same State. Mr. Reed moved to a different city for a new business. After a year, more or less, of regular visitation with his son, his visits became infrequent and even his child support had lowered because of difficulties in his business. Mr. Reed and Mrs. Mast had agreed that Jason would stay with his mother primarily, as long as they do not move the child to a different State permanently without a court’s approval. This was done before Mr. Reed moved to a Madison. A year later, the court’s final judgment had included this provision, said a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer.

About five months after the final judgment was the time Mrs. Mast got married to her current husband James Mast. Mr. Reed remarried around three months after. Mr. Mast joined the army and was stationed in North Carolina. He did this because of financial reasons. Mrs. Mast petitioned the court a little more than a year after her marriage to move to North Carolina to be with her husband and new child. She did move to North Carolina even before the decision, but she returned to Florida every other weekend with Jason so that Mr. Reed could have his time with him, which he never missed.

Mr. Reed argued that Mrs. Mast had permanently moved the child out of the State, that the move will hamper his relationship with his son, and he is capable of providing guidance. About eight months after the initial petition, the decision was granted in favor of Mr. Reed, and the primary residence was given to him. According to the records found by a Long Island Visitation Lawyer, this was appealed by Mrs. Mast.

Published on: January 19, 2012

Court Rules on Terms of Final Divorce Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

Child visitation cases are very common legal battles encountered by a Brooklyn Visitation Lawyer, when children of separated parties become subjects of exchanges of custodies.

A visitation exchange happens when a child moves from one parent to another at a time specified in custody exchanges judgment. In this case, as reviewed by one of our lawyers, the Father of the child appeals to a higher court for a reversal of a prior court’s decision that held the Father in contempt for letting their child fly to from New York to Florida alone, which violated the previous court’s written final judgment. In addition, the Mother stated that the Father had permitted the five year-old child to board a flight with an ear infection.

Custody and visitation cases may naturally bitter and sometimes even result to non-appearance of either of the parties during trial or appeals, according to a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer. In this case, during the time of trial, the Father was a resident of New York City and the Mother was residing in Tampa, Florida and a final judgment was given by a previous court to settle the ex-couples arguments over previous visitation exchanges. These are the things stated on the amended supplemental final judgment: (1.) that all visitation exchanges will transpire Pinellas County Visitation Exchange, (2.) that in case the visitation facility is not open, the ex-couples would each notify the other and the exchange of guardianship will then be held in the airport’s police station, and (3.) that the Court expects that the child will be able to fly all by herself when she becomes 8 years old.

Published on: January 17, 2012

Alabama Legislators Promoting Equal Parent Time

by Stephen Bilkis

Alabama legislators are considering a bill that would almost completely change the way that Alabama’s judges are able to order divorcing parents with children to divide their time with their children. If the bill in its current form passes, it would stipulate that provided both parents are fit parents, they would share equal custody and responsibility in raising their children after the parents’ divorce.

Sponsors of the bill informed a New York Family Lawyer that this seeks to address a long standing issue of one of the parents’ relegated to only a few hours of visitation with their children each month. It is in their opinion that by having both parents included in their children’s lives that the children will no longer feel like they are being pulled in two separate directions. They further add that as a part of the divorce the parents would be required to submit a parenting plan to the court that would stipulate what parts of their children’s lives they would be responsible. In case the parents would disagree, the parents would alternate years of certain responsibilities.

However, opponents contend that a “blanket fix” will not necessarily work, and that judges need the flexibility to decide what is in the child’s best interest. These opponents went on to add that the alternate year proposal could be detrimental to the children in that they may be permitted to do one thing the year when one parent makes the decision, and not be allowed to do the same thing when the other parent decides the following year. This is not the type of consistency and stability that children need.

Published on: June 12, 2011

Charlie Sheen’s Twins not in His Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

Actor Charlie Sheen has stumbled into a mess of recent struggles. The latest rebuff came when his petition to take custody of his twin sons from his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller, was shot down in court. The custody is to remain as an earlier custody agreement outlines. According to a New York City Family Attorney, those records have so far been kept confidential.

Both Sheen and Mueller were at the hearing. It is public knowledge that both have been struggling with sobriety for quite a while. In fact, Mueller just recently returned to rehab.

After the hearing, Sheen left the courthouse surrounded by his security detail and flew straight out to Washington D.C. to perform his stage show. When Mueller left the courthouse she was smiling and even hugged her attorney. She declined to comment, however.