Nassau

Published on: November 7, 2012

Court Decides Custody Arrangment

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband seeks custody of their two children from his wife who surreptitiously left the conjugal home in New York and took the children to Virginia where the wife’s relatives all lived.

During the trial, the husband and the wife testified. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother-in-law of the wife and the sister-in-law of the wife also testified for the husband and against the wife. The judge took the two children to a nearby park and interviewed the children. The judge videotaped this interview with the children.

During the custody hearing it was proved that the husband and the wife had a child when they were just teenagers. They got married within three years after the birth of their first child. The wife was emotionally and physically abused. A New York Custody Lawyer said the abuse consisted of sexual assault. The husband would force the wife to have sex. He would kick the woman and bite her, hit her with his fists in her back and buttocks. He also constantly criticized and insulted her within the hearing of their children.

Published on: November 3, 2012

Father Seeks Full Custody of Child

by Stephen Bilkis

Each party to these post-judgment proceedings seeks modification of the Judgment of Divorce from joint custody to sole custody. The issue in the father’s case is whether the mother’s allegation of sexual abuse of the child involving the father and her request of the Court to restrict his access to the child constitutes a change of circumstances to modify the award of joint custody with physical residence to the mother, and if so, whether it is in the best interest of the child for sole custody and physical residence to be awarded to the father. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother in her petition alleges the father is an unfit parent based on the sexual abuse allegations and requests his visitation be eliminated or supervised. The Court finds that there has been a sufficient change of circumstances and it is in the best interests of the child for her father to be granted sole custody.

The parties to this custody proceeding were married on September 7, 1991. There is one child of the marriage, born on July 27, 1995. They were divorced by Judgment of Divorce dated October 11, 1999 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Judgment incorporated a Stipulation of Settlement entered into between the parties on the record in Court on July 30, 1999, and a written stipulation regarding custody, dated July 30, 1999, which survives and is not merged in the Judgment, and pursuant to which the parties share joint child custody, with primary physical child custody to the mother. The Supreme Court did not retain exclusive jurisdiction to modify the Judgment. The father was awarded child visitation schedule that consisted of Wednesday evenings between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.; alternate weekends beginning Friday evenings at 6:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; and two weeks summer vacation in July and two weeks in August. The order also made provisions for holidays.

The complainant father and the opponent mother each seek modification of the Judgment and sole legal and physical custody of the child. A New York Custody Lawyer said the child has lived with her mother throughout her life. The father argues that the mother’s repeated fourth false accusation of sexual abuse, is indicative of the mother’s emotional instability and her attempts to frustrate his relationship with his daughter and that it is in the child’s best interest that the Judgment be modified to award him sole legal and physical custody. The Court finds that the mother’s fourth allegation of sexual abuse of the child is a sufficient change in circumstance, in that the mother, in part of a continuing pattern of attacks on the father in which she asked the Court to be her partner, interferes with and compromises his relationship with the child and, potentially, compromises the child’s future development. The Court finds that it is in the child’s best interest for custody to be awarded to the father in that continued joint custody and physical residence to the mother is detrimental to the child’s current and future development.

Published on: October 29, 2012

Court Decides Custody and Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A Puerto Rican couple married while they were citizens and residents of Puerto Rico. They had one son. The marriage was acrimonious. The husband physically abused the wife and threatened her life. He threw out the woman from their conjugal home. The woman escaped her abusive husband and fled with her seven month old son.

A New York Family Lawyer said the wife lived with her relatives in San Juan, the capital of Puerto Rico but then a few months later, she left Puerto Rico and settled for good in New York City. Soon after the wife left the conjugal home with her son, her husband filed divorce proceedings against his wife. The woman was not served a summons. She had no idea that divorce proceedings had been filed against her. The husband served her notice of the divorce proceedings by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Puerto Rico. On the date of the hearing, the wife failed to appear. A default decree of divorce was ordered. Custody was awarded to the husband and no visitation rights were awarded to the woman. The Puerto Rican Court recognized that at the time that it ordered the custody of the child to be given to the father, the physical custody of the child was with the wife. A New York Custody Lawyer said for this reason, the Puerto Rican divorce court also ordered the husband to pay $10 weekly support until such time that the husband gains custody of his son. Despite the custody decree, the husband never looked for his son. He never took physical custody of their son. And he did not pay child support as mandated by the Puerto Rican Court.

The wife went back to Puerto Rico six years after the divorce decree was entered against her. She asked the Puerto Rican divorce court to enforce that part of its decision for her ex-husband to pay child support of $10.

Published on: October 27, 2012

Court Decides Custody of Foster Children

by Stephen Bilkis

The children in question were placed in petitioner’s foster care. Their birth mother’s drug use was the catalyst for the placement. Her whereabouts are unknown and she was not present at any of the Family Court proceedings. Respondent is the father of the children. At the time of the children’s placement, he was incarcerated in state prison on a murder conviction and will remain incarcerated until at least May 2016. By that time, both children will have passed their 18th birthdays. In early August 2000, an agency case worker took the children to visit respondent in prison.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, according to the agency worker this was the only visit respondent had with the children prior to the agency’s filing of separate petitions seeking the termination of his parental rights. These petitions alleged that respondent had evinced intent to forgo those rights by reason of his failure to visit or communicate with the children in the six-month period prior to the filing and had therefore abandoned them. She testified that she contacted respondent through prison channels after the aforementioned visit, but he never responded or contacted her. Some of the letters she sent to him were returned to the agency but she did not produce at the hearing copies of any of the letters she claimed to have sent. She testified that respondent provided no financial support for the children did not maintain contact with them, did not send cards, letters or gifts and that no one contacted the agency on his behalf before the petitions were filed. She maintained that the agency did nothing to prevent or discourage respondent from coming forward, nor were there any other obstacles that might have prevented him from contacting the agency.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, on cross-examination, however, the agency worker testified that before the petitions were filed, she telephonically spoke with a family service specialist from the Osborne Association who had contacted her on respondent’s behalf regarding the children.

Published on: October 26, 2012

Court Rules for Sole Legal Custody to Mother

by Stephen Bilkis

In this custody proceeding, a New York Family Lawyer said that, the Family Court, Bronx, awarded petitioner mother sole physical and legal custody of the parties’ child dismissed respondent father’s petitions based on violations of temporary orders of visitation, denied respondent’s second motion to dismiss the child custody petition, and issued a five-year order of protection forbidding respondent from exercising any corporal punishment against the child. A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that defendant father appealed the decision.

The issue in this case is whether the Family Court erred in awarding the sole physical and legal custody of the child to the petitioner mother.

The Court said that, with regard to deprivation of respondent’s visitation rights, he had ample opportunity to present evidence of petitioner’s violations during the custody trial, but failed to do so. Moreover, the record indicates that petitioner supported the child’s regular and frequent visits with her father. Denial of respondent’s request for a subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion. A New York Custody Lawyer said there is no indication in the record that petitioner was using illegal drugs or had used them in the recent past, or that she had any medical or psychological condition that might negatively impact on her care for the child.

Published on: September 6, 2012

Court Examines Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

When the parties entered into their divorce settlement, the petitioner, the respondent and the child resided in Clinton County, New York. Petitioner has continued to reside in New York since the parties separated. Respondent relocated to the State of Connecticut approximately eight years ago. A New York Family Lawyer said that after the relocation, the parties arranged informally for the petitioner to visit with the child for an extended period in New York over the summer and during some of the child’s spring, winter Christmas school vacations. In July of 2008, respondent informed petitioner that if he wanted to exercise any visitation with the subject child he would have to come to Connecticut. The only explanation respondent gave petitioner for her new position was that the subject child has an attitude when she comes home and that petitioner and his family are a bad influence.

Petitioner filed a Petition seeking the modification of the parties’ New York State Judgment of Divorce dated February 25, 1999, regarding petitioner’s visitation with the parties’ child. The respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking the dismissal of petitioner’s petition arguing that the State of New York (where the petitioner resides) lacks exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody proceedings concerning this child. In the alternative, respondent requests that this Court decline jurisdiction in favor of Connecticut (where she and the child reside).

Respondent alleged that in the eight years that he and the child have resided in Connecticut, petitioner’s visitation has been sporadic, averaging approximately three weeks in the summer with an additional week during the year over the last three years. In at least two of the years since the child moved to Connecticut, the visitation has been a total of less than one week. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the overwhelming evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships is in the State of Connecticut and that it would be very inconvenient for the child and respondent to litigate the matter in New York.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Father Moves to Modify Custody Arrangement

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were married in May 1998. They have a minor child who was born in the United States in January 2003. Both parties are enlisted members of the United States Army currently on active duty at the same army base located in the Republic of Korea, where they have been stationed since September 2003. On or about October 24, 2005, the father commenced the instant divorce action. A New York Family Lawyer said prior to commencement of the divorce action, the parties executed a marital separation agreement which was negotiated and prepared by their respective Judge Advocate General (JAG) attorneys. With respect to child custody, the agreement states that the custody of the minor child shall be shared jointly. The couple agrees that although the child may reside with the wife, both parties shall exercise joint care and control of the child and both parents may visit said minor at any and all reasonable times and places. The Non-Custodial Parent will provide 72 (seventy-two) hours notice before visitation. If less than 72 (seventy-two) hours notice is provided, the Custodial Parent will permit visitation if she/he is able to reasonably accommodate such visitation. The couple represents and agrees that the welfare of the child shall be the major factor governing all aspects of child custody and visitation rights and it is further understood that nothing shall constitute an abandonment of the said child by either of the parties. The couple agrees to consult one another with regard to any and all major decisions affecting the health, education and welfare in the best interests of said child.

The wife is the Custodial Parent. The husband is the Non-Custodial Parent. The Custodial Parent agrees to consult with the Non-Custodial Parent on such matters as major medical treatments and selection of schools for the child to promote the best interests of the child. A New York Custody Lawyer said the Custodial Parent shall exercise final determination over the matters.

The separation agreement also provides that the Non-Custodial Parent shall have the privilege, during visitation periods, to take the child home or on outings and excursions and with the Custodial Parent’s prior consent, can visit the child in their home. The couple also agreed to be flexible in their visitation arrangement, to endeavor to resolve all visitation conflicts in good faith and to make all reasonable efforts to accommodate the schedule of the other parent. Moreover, failure to reach mutual accord on a requested adjustment shall not constitute justification for the Wife or Husband to delay delivery of the child beyond the above schedule. With regard to potential visitation disputes, the couple reserved the right to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to resolve the issue with the goal of maximizing the time with both parents in order to carry out the intent of equal shared child custody; provided, however, that no modification will be implemented unless both parties agree or a court of competent jurisdiction so orders.

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: January 23, 2012

Court Denies Proposed Relocation of Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother had filed an appeal against an order that disallows her to move to Texas with her two children. The mother had two sons with the father. They were born three years apart, said a New York Family Lawyer. Almost five years after the youngest was born, the parents divoced. In the final judgment for the dissolution of marriage, the court had them share parental responsibility. The custody of the children was given to the mother, with the father getting liberal visitation. The decision specifically said that the visitation is at least one night in a week plus every other weekend. A restriction on the relocation of the mother and the children was not provided in the decision.

The mother and her new husband lives in Texas with his son. They met when he was assigned in their area for an extended period. About a year and three months after the dissolution of the marriage was finalized, the mother filed a petition to change the visitation provisions because she will be marrying her new husband, and they would be moving to Texas. The father filed a case with the court asking for an injunctive relief. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said this was to prevent the mother from moving the children to Texas. It was granted by the court.

A final hearing was done in November 2004 where the new husband, the mother and the father testified. The new husband said he was a right-of-way agent for the oil and gas industry. According to him, he earns about $70,000 to $90,000 per year, his line of work though is not open in the current State. The mother’s testimony mentioned the benefits of moving the children to the smaller community of Ponder, Texas. She said her new husband has a new 3000-square-foot home and that there was a public school nearby. According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, the mother testified she was currently earning $58,000 per year, and can be promoted in her current employment. Once they move, she planned to be a stay at home mother, but if necessary, she could find a comparable employment in Texas. Although she does not have family in Texas, they are just two and a half hours away in Oklahoma. The father said he works nights, from eleven in the evening to half past seven in the morning. According to him, if he missed any scheduled visitation, it was because of work. Their normal activity of boating, fishing, bowling and other recreational stuff often include the children’s paternal grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins.