New York City

Published on: January 30, 2012

Vistitation

by Stephen Bilkis

In a story that was like it was made for a movie, Victoria D. daughter of Carole D. was the one who had two men claiming to be determined as her father. Carole was married to Gerald D. when she gave birth to Victoria. Carole was an international model, and Gerald was a top executive in a French oil firm. He had always said he was Victoria’s father, although tests showed that more than 98% probability, she was Michael H.’s. Carole had an affair with Michael while married to Gerald. A New York Family Lawyer said Victoria was the fruit of that adulterous affair.

For the first three year of Victoria’s life, she lived with Gerald, who treated her as his own child. Sometimes, she and her mother resided with other men. May was when Victoria was born, they lived with Gerald. October of the same year, Gerald moved to New York for business, and Carole and Victoria were in California. End of October, both Carole and Michael had tests done to check the paternity of Victoria and found the 98.07% probability she was Michael’s. January of the following year, Carole visited Michael. In March, she left and resided with Scott K. and in the same year with Gerald again, but by fall she was back with Scott.

November after the year Victoria was born, Michael filed a filiation action to get visitation rights and determine paternity because Carole was not allowing him access to Victoria. About six months after, Carole filed a motion for summary judgment. At this time, she had been with Gerald since March, which lasted until July. After, she was with Michael again and this time she asked her lawyers to withdraw the motion for summary judgment. For the next eight months, they lived together and April, before Victoria’s third birthday, Carole and Michael signed a stipulation that Michael was Victoria’s natural father. The month after, Carole left Michael and ordered her lawyers not to file the stipulation. She moved back with Gerald.

Published on: January 29, 2012

Unfit father learns of his child’s death eight years after his conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

A convicted abuser that lost custody of his children more than eight years ago, recently heard the sad news that one of his twin children had been murdered by her adopted father and the other so severely abused, that he remains hospitalized.

The father of the abused children claimed to have done everything he could to keep custody of them back in 2004. He and his wife allegedly abused drugs and engaged in prostitution prior to the charges.

“This is hard,” the grieving father said Tuesday outside his apartment. “Imagine what I could be feeling right now.”

Published on: January 28, 2012

Gay couple files complaint after being turned down by two beds and breakfasts for their civil union celebration

by Stephen Bilkis

Two men, who had been long-time companions, were thrilled when civil unions became legalized in Illinois. They immediately began planning their celebration but came to find, that although the state accepted their sexual orientation, two bed and breakfast facility owners had not.

The pair filed complaints stating the two owners had refused to rent them facility because they were gay. The couple alleged it violates the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public, explained a New York Family Lawyer.

One of the owners of the bed and breakfast said, “I only host traditional weddings and not civil unions.” He reiterated in a later email, “At this point we will just be doing traditional weddings.”

Published on: January 27, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent’s Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

Bonnie Belair and Jarret Clark divorced with Ms. Belair having sole custody of their minor child. This was finalized in 1997. Mr. Clark was given limited visitation rights once he completes the parenting class that was ordered by the court. After this decision by the court, Mary Francis Drew, the child’s paternal grandmother, petitioned the court to get visitation rights. They cited the law that grants grandparent’s visitation rights in certain circumstances. By February 1999, Ms. Belair submitted her petition to the Trial Court saying that the statute violates her constitutional right to privacy.

The Trial Court refused to deliver a verdict about the constitutional challenge that was placed by Ms. Belair. They gave temporary visitation rights to Ms. Drew, which was also to be in the same place as agreed in the mediation. What Ms. Belair did was to submit a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari is an order made by a higher court about a case that they have reviewed, said a New York Family Lawyer. Ms. Belair’s petition said that because the Trial Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation law, her right to privacy was violated.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, they cited the case of Beagle vs. Beagle. It was said in that case that the state “may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.” They also said that in the same case, the court said that the best interest of the child is placed first even before there is proof of harm. The privacy that is to be expected should be no less than the one experienced while married. The question now is if the court has the right to decide whether to impose visitation rights on a parent who does not want it. The Supreme Court acknowledges that “care custody and management” is a fundamental liberty interest of a parent. The court said as well that the choice which relates to child rearing and education are fundamental rights covered by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The state does not have the right to interfere with these decisions, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and they reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

Published on: January 26, 2012

Court Rules on Louisiana Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case that affects two States, Sharon and Edward Heartfield were part of this not so uncommon situation. The two were divorced by the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Sharon was the one awarded custody of the children. Edward got visitation rights and was ordered to pay 2,025 per month for child support. Once the divorce was finalized, Sharon together with the three children moved to Louisiana and has lived there for about four years.

Three years after moving to Louisiana, Sharon filed a case with the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas to request for the modification of the child support. Edward responded with a cross-action where he asked for more visitation times, reduced amount of child support and to have the case transferred to Hardin County, Texas. The case was transferred to Hardin County, Texas as per request.

After this, Sharon asked the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana to issue a decision that says that the original order by the court for visitation and child support be executed. She filed a motion in the Hardin County court as well, to have them dismiss the action or move it to Orleans Parish. This was denied by the courts of Hardin County and about a month later after a hearing, they issued a modified decision. The new decision reduced the child-support payments to $1,800 per month. The court said this is also dependent on specific visitation rights. A month later, Edward filed affidavits saying that visitation was being denied so he did not pay the child support. This is when he filed for a temporary injunction order to stop Sharon from her claims in the Louisiana Court. He filed it with the States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. Sharon dropped her case connected to the child support but said that the visitation schedule threatened the well-being of her children. The injunction was granted by the Louisiana court.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Court Reverses Visitation for Parent with Domestic Violence Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

Jason Leigh Owens asked the court for unsupervised visitation with his four-year-old daughter. This was only after multiple once a month supervised visits at family visitation centers. The reason for the supervised visits was that Mr. Owens was convicted and jailed for a third-degree felony for domestic violence. After an evaluation, the court said that Mr. Owens has greatly improved with his control of his emotions, especially his anger. The supervised visitation has already been maximized, mentioned by a New York Family Lawyer. From the records, the court also said, it was in the best interest of the child to move forward and give Mr. Owens shared parental responsibility and frequent unsupervised visits.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the decision, the order was for the first eight months will have unsupervised visits in the city where the child lives. This was to be between ten in the morning to four in the afternoon every second and fourth Sunday of the month. Every third Saturday, he would have a full day and night unsupervised visits. This is from ten in the morning Saturday to four in the afternoon the following Sunday. Mr. Owens did not ask for the overnight visitation.

Kylie C. Doyle, the mother contested this decision. The first was that because the overnight visit was not even asked by Mr. Owens. She also said that the welfare of her child is not going to be protected if the visit is unsupervised. Each party is not contesting that Mr. Owen entitlement as he is not because of the conviction. What the mother is arguing about is the effect to her child and the evidence that supports it would be good for her child to be in it.

Published on: January 24, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent’s Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother gave birth to her child on March 14, 1991. The mother died in December 1993 of cancer, said a New York Family Lawyer. About two months after her death, a girlfriend moved in with the father and daughter. The girlfriend and father eventually got married in October 1994, she adopted the daughter. By the late quarter of 1997, the couple went through divorce proceedings. This is when the child’s biological maternal grandparents, filed a petition with the court for visitation, which was granted by the Trial Court. The mother and father appealed against this decision.

According to the details given by both parties, the grandparents were in good terms with the father before their daughter died. It was also mentioned that they frequently visited with their grandchild. The relationship started to fall apart when the new wife came into the picture. At first, visitation with their granddaughter was reduced and after the adoption it ceased completely.

The grandparents argued with the law that says when one or both parents are deceased then, the grandparents may be given visitation rights. The father and his new wife argued that this violates their rights as parents of the child. The parties tried mediation but were unsuccessful, and the case went to trial.

Published on: January 20, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother was awarded custody her son, when the couple divorced. The boy was only two years old at that time. Less than a year later, the mother died. The father immediately assumed custody of their son less than a month after her death. He filed a petition to change the decree to give him custody and this was granted about three months after, said a New York Family Lawyer. The order showed he had already remarried, and that he allows visitation for the maternal grandmother, with his child.

When the grandmother received the child for a visit, she asked a different court to award her temporary custody of the child. This was granted by the court and there was no order from the previous court to transfer jurisdiction to them. According to a New York City Custody Lawyer, a hearing took place to hear the father’s side. After the review and the testimony of the father, the custody was given to the father, and the court ordered that the child be delivered to him. Visitation was not included in the ruling.

The grandmother filed a motion to modify the divorce decree about a year later so she could have visitation rights. The court granted her those rights and said she can have the child for thirty hours a week in her home or anywhere else. If the parties are unable to agree on the schedule, it was set to be from noon on Saturdays until six in the evening on Sundays. A New York City Visitation Lawyer mentioned as well that the court instructed both parties not to take the child outside their jurisdiction without their approval. Another two years passed before the grandmother filed another motion with the court against the father for contempt. She claimed that the father denied her visitation for the second week of February that year. In her petition, she said he announced his intention to deny her visitation in the future.

Published on: January 20, 2012

Court Rules on Nonpayment of Alimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This case begins where a couple was divorced, and the mother got the custody of their two children. The children were fourteen years old and twelve years old respectively at that time of the divorce. The father was given visitation right of not less than eighty-five days per annum. The alimony set was at $1,800 per month and for child support it was at $1,000 per month per child. A NYC Visitation Lawyer said the mother did not comply with this order, which made the father file a petition for modification of the alimony to $1,000 and decreasing the child support to $300 per month per child.

It was determined that the mother was making their children decide whether they want to see their father or not. It is between them and their father, who lives in Florida. She does not discourage them to see him, but she does not encourage it as well. The Trial Court granted the father’s petition, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The mother filed a motion for contempt of court against her husband saying he is not paying the alimony. She asked the court as well to award the alimony in arrears and to have it continued. According to a New York Family Lawyer, the Domestic Relations Commissioner reviewed the file and found that the father was in arrears for the amount of $3,600 until that month, and the next regular payment should be made the following month. He testified he did not pay the alimony because he was not able to visit with their child. The older one was already emancipated. The mother, he said, refused to discuss visitation with their daughter. He did not deny that he could make the payment as the amount was deposited to an escrow account. He raised the same issue as with his claim where because of the denial of visitation, he did not pay the alimony.

Published on: October 21, 2011

Madoff’s Daughter-in-Law’s Uncertain Future

by Stephen Bilkis

Stephanie Madoff had no idea of the events that were about to unfold on the morning of December 11, 2010. The Disney World trip she was enjoying with her 4-year old daughter and her own mother was the getaway both she and her daughter needed in order to create new and better memories for the two, a New York Family Attorney heard. What lay before her as the morning progressed would change both her and her daughter’s lives yet again.

At some point after 6 a.m. the 35-year old Stephanie would check her phone for any messages. While the first message that she received from her husband, Mark Madoff, was bothersome, it was the second message that sent her into a state of panic. The second message simply said, “I love you,” in the subject line, and contained an empty message body. She immediately contacted her stepfather to the couple’s New York apartment to investigate, and what he discovered would shake the woman to her core.

What Stephanie Madoff’s stepfather discovered in their apartment, was Mark Madoff hanging from a ceiling beam with a black dog leash wrapped around his neck. He was 46-years of age at the time of his death. A NY City Family Lawyer was also told that he did not leave a suicide note behind, and the last two messages that Stephanie received were all she had left.