New York City

Published on: October 30, 2012

Wife Contends Ex-Husband Violated Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman filed divorce action against her husband on the ground of abuse. The Court issued a decree of divorce and gave the custody of their son to the woman. A New York Family Lawyer said an Order of Protection was made permanent by the Court; the husband was ordered to leave the conjugal apartment and not to assault, menace or otherwise commit any disorderly conduct with his ex-spouse. The husband was given visitation rights. However, twelve months after the order, the woman filed a family offense petition before the Family Court.

She filed a complaint with the police that her ex-husband had violated the Order of Protection issued by the Family Court by going to her apartment, hitting her in front of their son, repeatedly calling her home phone number and threatening her and her child. The police arrested her ex-husband and he was arraigned.

At his arraignment he asked the dismissal of the cases for aggravated assault, aggravated harassment and harassment on the ground that his ex-wife filed an election where she agreed that these charges be tried not before the criminal courts but within the Family court that had jurisdiction over them.

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 28, 2012

Plaintiff Claims Police Did Not Enforce Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

Prior to the incident, infant plaintiff’s father was known to the defendant’s police officers at the 43rd Precinct, having previously been arrested by them approximately six times for drunkenness, abusive and physical assault upon his family. A New York Family Lawyer said in July, 1975 he assaulted his wife with a knife, inflicting lacerations which required suturing at the Hospital; a Bronx Divorce Lawyer said that she thereafter brought a divorce action, which resulted in further violence by the infant plaintiff’s father and threats by him that he would kill her and the children if she proceeded with the divorce action. A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the infant’s mother thereupon went into the Family Court where, she obtained a preliminary order of protection against her husband; thereafter, the order was finalized for one year and, over her strenuous objections, was amended to grant to the father visitation with the infant plaintiff from 10:00 A.M. on Saturdays to 6:00 P.M. on Sundays. After the parties left the courtroom the father attempted to assault his wife and he had to be restrained by a court officer. The Family Court judge was informed of the incident and thereupon directed the court officer to get him out of the building; however, the judge did not rescind his week-end visitation with the infant.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, in accordance with the provisions of the Family Court Act, a “Certificate of Order of Protection” was duly issued to the infant’s mother by the clerk of that court on November 6, 1975 certifying that an Order of Protection had been issued to her, pursuant to which the infant’s father was forbidden to assault, menace, harass, endanger, threaten or act in a disorderly manner toward petitioner and he is to remain away from the home of said petitioner.”

Two days later, the infant’s mother took the infant to the 43rd Precinct to accord the infant’s father his week-end visitation. He took the infant and, as he was walking away, he made a death threat against his wife, and the infant, and he indicated to his wife that before the week-end was up she would be making “the sign of the cross” which to them meant that there would be a death. The mother immediately went into the precinct and told the desk officer of the death threats to herself and the infant; she showed the desk officer the Certificate of Order of Protection; she advised him of her fears and told him that she was frightened for the safety of her child and herself and that the Order of Protection protected her from such threats and she requested the police to take her husband into custody for violating said order. However, the police refused to do anything whatsoever. The infant’s father failed to return the infant at 6:00 P.M., as required by the Order of Protection. The mother again went into the station house and she again spoke to the police officer and the lieutenant she again demanded that the police arrest her husband for violating the order and protect the infant; once again the police refused to do anything whatsoever and told her to wait a couple of hours and that “perhaps” the father had taken the infant to a movie. Thereafter, the infant father’s sister entered his apartment. She found him lying on the floor with an empty whiskey bottle and an empty pill bottle lying beside him. She also found the infant, who had been viciously attacked, mutilated and severely injured by her father and she telephoned the police. The father had attacked the infant at about 7:00 P.M. with a fork, a knife and screwdriver; he had attempted to saw her leg off with a saw; she had been slashed from head to toe and she had sustained severe multiple internal injuries. Minutes later police officers from the same 43rd Precinct arrived and they rushed the infant to the Hospital in their police car, without waiting for an ambulance; the infant was immediately taken into surgery and she was operated. The infant was in a coma for several days and she remained in a critical condition for approximately three weeks and was hospitalized until December 19, 1975 she remains severely and permanently disabled. The father was arrested after the attack on the infant and he was thereafter indicted by the Grand Jury, tried and found guilty of attempted murder of the infant and he is now serving a jail sentence for the crime.

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: October 25, 2012

Court Discusses Parental Rights of Imprisoned Father

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman who was high on drugs found herself married to a man she hardly knew. She never lived with that man she married and she never even had sexual relations with him to her knowledge. A New York Family Lawyer said she tried to divorce him in the days that followed but she could not locate him so she could not serve him divorce papers.

The woman later cleaned herself up and stopped taking drugs. By that time, she met another man with whom she fell in love. They lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of a marriage. With this man, she had two children. In the children’s birth certificates, the man was listed as their father and the children used his surname. A New York Custody Lawyer said the children received pediatric care and in the medical records with the children’s pediatrician, the man was indicated as their father. The man was also listed as the children’s next of kin in case of emergency. The father listed the children as his beneficiaries and dependents. He fully supported them with the salary he earned as a construction worker.

The real father of the children (the man who was not the legal husband of the children’s mother) was imprisoned several times during the infancy of the children but he was imprisoned for only short terms of six months. In 1998, he was imprisoned with a term of five years. During his incarceration, he still tried to support the woman and his children with her with earnings as an inmate. He asked his sister to visit the children for him when he couldn’t reach them by telephone because the telephone service at their apartment had been cut off. Months later, the sister of the imprisoned father could no longer find the children or the mother.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Plaintiff Requests a Bifurcation of Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is a divorce proceeding being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. The defendant in the matter is Thomas Hannigan and the plaintiff in the case is Barbara Hannigan.

Case Background

The plaintiff and the defendant are respectively 44 and 43 years old and have three children together. The children are 18, 13, and 11 years old. The couple was married on the fifteenth of June, 1985. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the plaintiffs have begun this matrimonial action on the 20th of June, 2005. The main issue in this dispute is how the marital property of the couple is going to be distributed. The marital property includes a substantial amount of real property that they own as tenants by the entirety, the money that is located in a bank account that is only in the name of the plaintiff, and the value of the business owned by the defendant and the value of the plaintiff’s nursing degree and nursing license.

Published on: October 23, 2012

Plaintiff Moved to Increase Alimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. The plaintiff in the matter is Ethel Phillips and the defendant is Gilbert L. Phillips. The plaintiff is seeking a separation from the defendant, who is her husband. Ms. Phillips alleges that the defendant has treated her cruelly and fails to provide fro her. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant denies these allegations and has entered a counterclaim seeking an annulment from the marriage. The defendant states that their marriage should be annulled because the plaintiff was still married to another individual at the time the couple was married.

Case Background

On the last day of March in the year 1950, the plaintiff obtained a divorce from her husband, Mr. Moss. This divorce was obtained in the state of Georgia in the Superior Court of Richmond County. At the time of the divorce the plaintiff stated that she had been a resident of Georgia for over a year before instituting the action for divorce. However, a New York Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff was actually still a New York state resident at that time. She had only been in Georgia for a couple of days and visited the state for the purpose of obtaining the divorce and no other reason. She had not established a residency in the state of Georgia. Moss, the plaintiff’s husband acknowledged the action in the Georgia court and did not contest the divorce. The decree from the Georgia court states that the divorce was granted to the plaintiff on the 31st of March, 1950. After the divorce took place, the plaintiff’s ex-husband Moss took on another spouse.

Published on: October 13, 2012

Child Placed in Foster Care Due to Parent’s Drug Use

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Michael D. who is a child that is under the age of eighteen and has been allegedly neglected by Tiffany D. This case is being heard in the Family Court of New York in Bronx County.

Case Background

The child in this case, Michael D. is only two years old. On the 5th of August, 2010, the attorney for the child moved to show case that the Administration of Children’s Services along with its contract agency, Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York were in contempt for disobedience of mandates that were made by the court. A New York Family Lawyer said the attorney for the child alleges that both the ACS and Little Flower agency violated the orders that were made in this court on the fourth of March, 2010 and the tenth of May, 2010, and these violations impaired and were prejudice against the child in the pending neglect proceeding.

Published on: October 9, 2012

Court Reviews Joint Custody Agreement

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The petitioner and appellant of this case is Leroy D. West Sr. The respondent in this case is Racquel Vanderhorst. A New York Family Lawyer the petitioner and appellant in this case Leroy D. West Sr. is appealing an order that was made by the Referee Elizabeth Barnett in the Family Court of Bronx County. The order awarded the respondent mother, Racquel Vanderhorst with sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child. The petitioner father was given visitation rights in the order.

Case Discussion

When reviewing the facts of the case, the determination that was made by the Referee to modify the joint custody agreement of the couple was made on a substantial basis. The record shows that after the judgment for divorce was granted to the couple there was a complete breakdown of communication between the couple. A New York Custody Lawyer said there was an instance of domestic violence that occurred in the presence of the child. This made the possibility of joint custody as was agreed to in the divorce agreement, impossible.