Articles Posted in Long Island

A New York Family Lawyer said that a father was in prison at the time of his child’s birth, and was ultimately sentenced to a determinate ten years of imprisonment upon his conviction for attempted robbery. While the man was in prison, he filed a petition seeking visitation with his child, resulting in the issuance of an order of custody. The order provided that the mother of the child would have the custody and the father would have visitation at the correctional center at least once a month.

Afterward, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said the child came into the care of the county’s department of social services as the result of an emergency removal. The child was then placed with foster parents. The department of social services subsequently filed a petition against the mother alleging that the child was a neglected child as a consequence of the mother’s substance abuse.

Subsequently, a Long Island Family Lawyer said the court issued an order of fact finding and disposition with continued placement. The court also modified the permanency plan to adoption, and shortly thereafter, changed to dual goals of adoption/reunification with the mother.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on May 30, 2006, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b for entry of an order that finds that reasonable efforts to return the subject child to respondent mother are not required, because the court had entered a finding of severe abuse and aggravated circumstances as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (j). The respondent requested various adjournments to respond to the motion. On September 23, 2006, respondent mother submitted opposition papers requesting a hearing on the motion. The law guardian supported ACS’s motion without submitting papers. The court heard oral argument on the motion on October 2, 2006, where ACS urged this court to grant its motion without a hearing. The court subsequently scheduled the motion for a hearing, with its analysis incorporated in this written decision.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, ACS filed a petition, alleging that the subject child is an abused child, and that is a derivatively abused/neglected child, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012. On February 22, 2006, with leave of this court, ACS filed an amended petition against both respondents, alleging that the subject child is an abused child, as defined by Family Court Act § 1012 (e), and is severely abused by his mother, pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i). The amended petition further alleges that as a result of the severe abuse of the subject child, his two-year-old half-sibling, is derivatively severely abused by her parents, respondent mother and respondent father. The amended petition alleges that four-year-old child suffered multiple serious injuries, including a bone-deep laceration to his chin, multiple bruises, burns and marks about his body, all of which respondents failed to seek timely medical attention for.

A Kings Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the respondent mother pleaded guilty in Kings County Supreme Court to a violation of Penal Law § 120.25, reckless endangerment in the first degree, with respect to failing to seek prompt medical treatment for the subject child’s injuries for the two-month period from March 6 to May 6 of 2005, and to a violation of Penal Law § 260.10, endangering the welfare of a child. William’s stepfather, a person legally responsible for him, also pleaded guilty to a violation of Penal Law § 120.25, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and violation of Penal Law § 260.10, endangering the welfare of a child.

A New York Family Lawyer said this is an action for divorce where plaintiff wife has made applications for orders: directing defendant husband to vacate the marital home; to provide support and maintenance for her and the issue of the marriage; and to restrain him from removing furnishings, furniture and personal property from the residence.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 30 April 1971, when the motions were originally submitted, the court discovered that an application which had been made to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for an order of protection was being sent to the Family Court, Nassau County, for determination. Upon inquiring with the Nassau Family Court, that information was confirmed. Apparently, since the motions concerned ‘relief associated with the Family Court proceeding’, the Suffolk Family Court referred them to the Nassau Family Court for hearing and determination. However, the applications were referred back to them.

On 9 June 1971, the Suffolk Family Court returned the matters to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, the court at bar, for determination.

Continue reading

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, a New York Family Lawyer said the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the subject child.

A New York Custody Family Lawyer said that the mother and the father were married in 2000, and after the birth of the subject child later that year, they lived together in their native country of Peru. After an altercation with the father in January 2006, the mother left the marital home with the subject child. In May 2006, during the pendency of a custody proceeding commenced by the father in Peru, the mother took the subject child to the United States and settled on Long Island with her boyfriend and his family, without informing the father of their whereabouts.

In March 2008, after discovering the whereabouts of the mother and the subject child, and after learning that the mother had, in May 2007, obtained an order from the Family Court, Queens County, awarding her custody of the subject child upon the father’s default, the father commenced this proceeding in the same court, seeking custody of the subject child. The Family Court conducted a hearing on the father’s petition, at which it heard testimony from the father and the mother, as well as a court-appointed forensic psychologist who, inter alia, interviewed the parties and the subject child and rendered a comprehensive evaluation specifically addressing the impact on the subject child of a change in custody.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said in two related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she neglected the subject children and placed them in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County until the completion of the next permanency hearing.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof placing the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County, the order is affirmed as appealed from without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and a new disposition thereafter.

The findings of neglect as to the subject children were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The mother’s contention that the Family Court deprived her of due process by limiting her testimony as to the skin condition of one of the children is unpreserved for appellate review, as it was not raised before the Family Court, and, in any event, is without merit.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said this is a cross appeal from an order of the Family Court of Essex County, entered October 28, 2009, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of child support. A New York Divorce Lawyer said that, plaintiff and defendant were married in 2001 and the parents of twins (born 2007). In July 2008, plaintiff commenced this action for divorce seeking, among other things, an order of custody and an order of child support. Simultaneously with the commencement of this action, plaintiff moved for pendente lite relief, including an order of temporary custody and child support. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, defendant cross-moved for temporary custody. In December 2008, Supreme Court Justice issued a temporary order directing that the parties have joint legal custody and setting a schedule of custodial time. Thereafter, Supreme Court Justice referred plaintiff’s application for support to Family Court.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, after a fact-finding hearing, at which the parties stipulated to various facts, including their respective incomes and the amount of custodial time each enjoyed with the children, the Support Magistrate determined that defendant was the noncustodial parent and that his pro rata share of the basic child support obligation for both children was $469 biweekly (including $27 for his pro rata share of the children’s health insurance coverage). However, the Support Magistrate further found that defendant’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation would be unjust and/or inappropriate and reduced the basic support amount from $442 biweekly to $200 biweekly. These cross appeals ensued.

The threshold issue presented is whether the Support Magistrate properly determined that plaintiff is the custodial parent and that defendant is the noncustodial parent for purposes of determining child support.

A New York Family Lawyers said the parties were married in 1978 in Karachi, Pakistan. Later that year they moved to New York City. In April 1980 the Parties’ child was born in the United States. In March, 1981 the child was taken to Pakistan. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant claims and a later decision of a court found, that this was done without her knowledge or consent. Defendant in turn took the child from Pakistan, without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. She brought him to her relatives in Ireland. Thereafter, defendant returned to New York for at most a few weeks. The child remained in Ireland. Both parties started various New York City Family Court proceedings which were eventually abandoned, denied or marked off the calendars. Defendant returned to Ireland.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that three years later, plaintiff served defendant with papers for a divorce. Service was made in Dublin, Ireland. Thereafter, defendant returned to the United States with the child. Defendant did not answer the divorce papers. She claims she thought reconciliation was in the works. The divorce was processed as an uncontested with custody of the child remaining with both parties.

A Long Island Family Lawyer said that during the fall, defendant started proceedings to reopen the divorce based upon lack of jurisdiction and lack of proper service. The parties were in litigation for approximately 1 1/2 years concerning the jurisdiction, economic issues, and visitation. Plaintiff did not see the child during this time.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said the former couple entered into a separation agreement by which the child’s custody was placed with the mother subject to visitation by the father. The Inferior Court incorporated the child custody agreement in its decree divorcing the parents at the suit of the mother. At that time the child was four years old.

The Special Term Court transferred child custody from her father to her mother on the basis of opposing affidavits, and on default of the father, but the court’s order was reversed. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said according to the Family Court Act, on a showing to the family court that a change of circumstances subsequent to the entry of an order of judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction not of the state of New York, fixing child custody in an action for divorce, separation or annulment, the family court shall proceed to determine an application to modify the custodial arrangement provided in such order or judgment.

Statutes and decisional law must afford justice to the child as she grows older and her environment and needs may change with the passing years. A Long Island Family Lawyer said to afford less to the child by adhering with rigidity to her custodial status fixed at the age of four, when she is eleven and if her best interests require a change, would be to impair her welfare which is the paramount concern of the decision as to her child custody.

In April 1979, the Grand Jury of Kings County found reasonable cause to believe that respondents herein had committed acts which, if done by a person over the age of sixteen (16), would constitute the crimes of petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, assault in the third degree and harassment.

A New York Family lawyer said that, petitions were filed in the above-captioned matters in the Intake a Part of Kings County Family Court. The office of Corporation Counsel of the City of New York appeared in support of the petitions and the Legal Aid Society was appointed to represent both respondents for the purpose of arraignment only. Stayed warrants were then issued for respondents and their parents, since they had failed to appear at the arraignment in this Court, per the Supreme Court order.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the adjourned date, the two respondents and their mothers made timely appearances in this Court as did the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the Law Guardian (Legal Aid Society).On that date, with both respondents and their mothers present, the Assistant Corporation Counsel informed the Court that he was not ready to proceed to trial, since the complaining witness had failed to appear. Motions were therefore made on behalf of both respondents to dismiss the instant petitions. These motions are now before the Court and are the subject of this decision.

Continue reading