New York City

Published on: February 9, 2012

ICE Arrests Family for Providing Fake Marriages for Visas

by Stephen Bilkis

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a man, his wife, and their daughter, under suspicion of visa fraud, sources have confirmed to a New York Family Lawyer.

ICE officials suspect the Yorba Linda, CA, family of arranging fraudulent marriages, filing fraudulent marriage petitions, and filing fraudulent work visa petitions.

The investigation that began in 2009 as a result of officers of the Fraud Detection and National Security Division of USCIS began noticing similarities between more than 20 visa petitions they traced back to the company the family ran. Many of the documents that were used contained the same marriage and divorce certificates, witnesses, and even the same spouses.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Missouri high court sides with immigrant, discusses New York Family Lawyer

by Stephen Bilkis

The Missouri Supreme Court granted a Guatemalan immigrant a retrial in a lower court over a child custody case. They ruled that the state did not follow law when she was caught in an immigration sweep, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The court stated that the state terminated her parental rights prematurely, which allowed her son to be adopted by another family. Even thought the court sided with the immigrant, she was not reunited with her son. She will have another hearing before a lower court to determine whether her parental rights should be terminated, a New York Custody Lawyer declared.

The woman was detained when she was working illegally in a poultry processing plant. Instead of allow her to arrange for her 6-month-old son, her custody was terminated and her son was adopted. Her son is now 4 years old and has been with his adoptive parents for over two years now.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Parents who separate must continue financially supporting their children even after their marriages have already been dissolved. However, according to our New York Family Lawyer, it is natural for parties under cases like these to be full of bitterness and resentment directed towards each of the parties. Usually, a custodial parent is appointed to determine the children’s residence as well as for tax purposes. Some custodial parents refuse visitation rights from non-custodial parents, who in turn, refuse to pay for child support. When this happens, the children’s welfare is put on the back seat. This is one of the drawbacks of separation. In this case that we will talk about, the Mother was awarded custodial rights and was receiving benefits from public assistance. Naturally, the Department of HRS will seek he father for child support who was allegedly in arrears for more than $980. Therefore, a motion was sought to hold the father in contempt for refusal to pay child support.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the HRS found out that the father was financially able to pay for the child support. During the time of the hearing, the Father defended himself by stating that the reason he did not pay for child support is because of the Mother’s refusal to allow him to see his child. And because of that, the court rules on the Father’s favor and concluded that the Father was not found to be acting in contempt and that he is not liable to pay for child support for an indefinite period. This made the HRS appeal the reversal of the trial court’s decision. In addition to the Father’s defense, the trial court also found out that neither and order of visitation nor was a request for one made by the Father. Our Nassau County Family Lawyer clarified that if the Father wanted to visit the children, all he had to do was ask the court to permit him to visit and if he was able to secure one, and the Mother refused the visit, the Mother will be held in contempt.

Since the Father did not do anything to appeal the court or have the Mother be held in contempt, he unknowingly waived his visitation rights. The trial court was not able to modify the child support terms because no proper proceedings were invoked to be able to settle the issue. To modify the child support, the parties could have agreed for new terms and the need for the modification must be thoroughly explained and justified. How the new terms will be able to support the child must also be discussed and conferred with by the parties. If and when they cannot reach for a settlement, then they may ask the Court to modify the child support terms. Again, the new terms must be justified and explained and that they must be granted on the basis of a change in one of the parent’s circumstances such as loss of a job, disability, inability to pay, etc. However, in this case, none of these proceedings happened. Thus, the Father was found to be in contempt for refusing to pay for the child support and using the lack of visitation as a justification for doing so. The trial was then recommended to be remanded or sent back to a lower court for further trial and action. Moreover, it was suggested that the Father’s duty to pay for child support must be enforced according to the law.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Divorce Settlement During Madoff Scheme Might Be Reevaluated

by Stephen Bilkis

A divorce settlement that was hammered out previous to Bernie Madoff getting arrested and convicted might get a man some money back, says a New York Family Lawyer. The couple had several million dollars in an account – or so they thought – with Bernie Madoff’s investment firm. The account was then split and the man and wife went their separate ways. That is, until the man found out there were fewer millions in the account than what he was led to believe.

The case has gone through many different appeals, with judges not being able to reach a unanimous decision. This time, the case was heard by the New York State Appeals court and there was a 3-2 vote for the case to be re-heard. The man is dancing in the street; however the ex-wife is not as thrilled.

The account was said to have $5.4 million dollars sitting in it, which was then split in half between the two in 2006. Once Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme came to light, the man claimed that it was an accounting error from when they made the split and she should have to pony back some of the money he gave her. Since the money didn’t exist, he should not have to give her half of it. The judges are torn between the reality of the money being there and determining when, exactly, the mistake was made. The case will be presented to the judges in the coming months.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Seeking a family lawyer’s advice is essential in understanding where you stand in your state’s federal estate tax laws

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people tend to overlook the likelihood of being hit with a large estate tax because they aren’t considered “wealthy.” But according to a New York Family Lawyer, many upper middle-class citizens could be hit with a tax rate as high as 35%.

Under the current law, there is an exemption for estate tax of up to $5 million for those who die in 2011 and 2012. What is news to many is that this amount can easily be exceeded when you take life insurance coverage, a valuable home, healthy retirement balances and other assets into account.

“Don’t forget to count any private business ownership interests such as shares in a family corporation or partnership,” explained a New York Custody Lawyer.

Published on: February 6, 2012

“Affordable Divorce” gives unhappy couples a way to save money, a New York Family Lawyer explains

by Stephen Bilkis

No longer do you need to spend thousands of dollars getting a divorce, says a New York Family Lawyer. You do not even have to hire an attorney to represent you, not if you use the company “Affordable Divorce” located out of Houston, Texas.

The company was started in 1998 by business partners Equator Turner and Jimisu Balko. Turner is an attorney out of Texas.

“There’s really no reason – I hope I’m not stepping on anyone’s toes – to have an attorney stand there and hold your hand as long as it is a simple uncontested divorce,” said Balko.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Grandparent Visitation Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

Child visitation and child custody are cases that are very frequently occurring, especially in the states. The details of the case are not easy especially when the rights and the benefits of the children are the ones at stake. In this particular case, the grandparents are the ones who are involved in the case. This case involves the couple Diane and David Saul who are the maternal grandparents of the child who was born out of wedlock.

The said child was born around October of 1994 and lived with his mother and her parents. The father lived separately with his own parents since the couple was not married. When the child reached about 8 months old, the mother filed an action to demand child support for the child from the father. The father succumbed to this but the mother was killed in an accident when the child was two. This scenario led for the child to live with his father which started the issue between the parents of the mother and the father.

The grandparents are fighting for the right to visit since according to a New York Visitation Lawyer, this should be granted when one or both parents are already dead or if the child was born without his parents getting married. However, the conflict arises when the point of the father having the right to same privacy level is raised especially since the mother has already passed away. The points raised may be too hard to handle especially when all parties involved only have the interest to protect the child. The court is only after giving the rights to those who will not cause harm to the overall well being of the child.

Published on: February 2, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Adoption Case

by Stephen Bilkis

There was one particular case that a New York Family Lawyer studied which might sound not so common when it comes to cases of child custody or visitation rights. It involves the presence of two minor kids named only as I.S. and C.S. Both of their parents are already dead with their mother dying after giving birth to C.S. Following this scenario, both of them stayed in the custody of their maternal grandfather along with his wife, which went on for four months. Their father died out of a car accident.

When this happened, the two guardians provided for the primary care of the children. As all these were happening, the other set of grandparents in the side of the father, were constantly getting in touch with their grandkids as well. It did not take long before the two acting as guardians decided to file a petition to adopt their two grandkids. The two are defending in court that this is the best way they think that they can serve the kids and give them all the benefits they deserve.

It was without any doubt who also looked into this case that both were actually fit to become parents of the kids. But there was evidence discovered that before the father of the children died, he requested for his kids to be raised by his own parents; the paternal grandparents. It seemed hard to decide on this since both sets of grandparents are very loving to both kids. And it was apparent as well that the two kids also love all their grandparents, whichever parents’ side.

Published on: February 1, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation where Substance Abuse is a Factor

by Stephen Bilkis

When families break down, it is the children who suffer so much. When they start growing up in an environment that is unresolved, they also tend to create chaotic environments on their own. If we care for the future generations of this country, then it is important that we help each other out in informing families on how it is really to raise one. You would learn a lot of values and rights when you get to review some child visitation rights cases explored by a credible New York Family Lawyer.

This case was between the Department of Children and Families versus a mother who is not capable of taking care of her own son. The mother was hidden in the initials of B.M. The child is a four-year-old boy with the initials of B.B. He was brought to the DCF for a shelter petition last 2006. It all started with the mother and child deciding to live alone away from the father who mistreats and abused his wife. In September 12 of 2006, she left her son in a neighbor’s house and promised that she would return soon. But she did not and only came back for her son the afternoon of the next day.

Because of this non-compliance according to a New York Visitation Lawyer she was evicted two days after and she even evaded possible confrontation with the WID. A history of violence in the home was traced and both parents had restraining orders. By September 18, the mother was allowed visitation that is supervised about two times in a week. But on the following month, reports say that she has already missed three appointed visits with which she gave three unreasonable excuses as well. First, she simply overslept. Second, she had to go to a particular doctor’s appointment. Third, she needed to do another follow up with her doctor.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In September 1999, Frances Adrienne Sullivan gave birth to a son. A New York Family Lawyer said, after, she filed a paternity action against Landon Cole Sapp. This was to set custody, parental responsibility and child support for her son. By March 2001, the final decision was that Mr. Sapp was the natural father of the child. The parental responsibility was to be shared by both mother and father. The court said that the child should live with his mother, with the Mr. Sapp provided with reasonable access to his child. He was to pay child support, which he could also declare as an exemption for tax purposes for even numbered tax years and the odd number for Ms. Sullivan.

A few days after the decision, Ms. Sullivan asked the court for clarification of the dependent claim eligibility of each parent. Before this could be determined, Ms. Sullivan died in a car accident. Elizabeth Sullivan, the baby’s maternal grandmother, filed a Motion to Intervene and for the Award of Reasonable Visitation to Grandparent and was asking for a decision granting her the right to get involved in the paternity suit filed by her daughter. This is limited to certain situations and one of them is the death of a parent or both parents. To answer this, the father filed a motion to dismiss.

The lower courts ruled that the grandmother cannot intervene in the paternity suit because her daughter is already deceased, and the determination will not make a different as to can file for a dependent exemption. The visitation right was also dismissed. This was appealed by grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts.