New York City

Published on: May 9, 2014

Court Hears Case Pursuant to Family Court Act Article 5-B

by Stephen Bilkis

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5-B to establish a support order, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, which denied her objection to an order of the same court, which, after a hearing, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding and for an attorney’s fee in the sum of $3,000 to the respondent.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the petitioner is the sister of the father, acting on behalf of her then-14-year-old nephew, commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to establish a support order against the child’s mother. When the child’s parents were divorced in 2001, the mother was awarded custody of both the child and his sister, and the father was directed to pay approximately $1,500 per month for child support. In 2003 the child refused to continue living with his mother and went to live with his father. During the same period, the father anticipated that he would be incarcerated and commenced a proceeding to modify the custody provisions of the divorce decree.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said on the return date of the father’s petition, the mother, father, and petitioner all appeared in court. As the mother recounted the events at a hearing held in connection with the instant petition, she had wanted the child to return to her home, but the child had been manipulated and turned against her by his father. She reluctantly agreed in the father’s modification proceeding to accept petitioner’s offer to have the child stay with petitioner at her home in Florida while the father was in prison, rather than have the child go to a foster home. Upon consent of both parents, the Family Court issued a modified custody order which provided, inter alia, that the mother and father would have joint legal custody of the child, and that after the end of the 2003/2004 school term, the child would reside with petitioner in Florida until further order of the court. At the court appearance on the father’s petition, there was no discussion of child support to the petitioner, as, according to the mother, “money was not an issue for her.”

Published on: May 9, 2014

Father Applies for Upward Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court, as denied his petition for an upward modification of the mother’s child support obligation and allocation of child care and college expenses.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that the Court ordered that the order, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying the petitioner’s objections to so much of the order, as denied those branches of the petition which were for an upward modification of the mother’s basic child support obligation and allocation of child care expenses, and substituting therefor a provision sustaining those objections, and vacating the provisions of the order, which denied the branches of the petition which were for an upward modification of the mother’s basic child support obligation and allocation of child care expenses as so modified, the order, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination thereafter of the mother’s basic child support obligation pursuant to the Child support Standards Act and her share of child care expenses.

A Long Island Family Lawyer said the Support Magistrate’s order denied the father’s petition for an upward modification of the mother’s child support obligation on the grounds that the mother’s original child support obligation of $120 per week, which included child care expenses, was set forth in a stipulation of settlement incorporated but not merged in the parties’ judgment of divorce, no unreasonable and unanticipated change in circumstances had occurred, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the child’s needs were not being met. However, that determination was contrary to the express terms of the stipulation, which provided: “any change to the provisions hereof that the parties cannot agree upon may be the subject of further court proceedings.”

Published on: May 8, 2014

Wife Seeks an Upward Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and defendant were previously divorced by Judgment granted in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. The parties have three children.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that in May of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to money laundering and securities fraud in connection with his direct involvement with a brokerage. In 2001, the defendant was subsequently charged with engaging in unlicensed telemarketing in Florida. In April of 2001, six months after executing a Marital Settlement Agreement, the defendant was imprisoned. In December of 2003, he was released under house arrest.

A Staten Island Child Custody Lawyer said pursuant to the provisions of a Stipulation and Order, the defendant was to pay the sum of $3,500 per month as and for child support for two (2) unemancipated children, in addition to the sum of $2,000 per month on account of arrears pursuant to the Stipulation and another Order for a total payment to the plaintiff of $5,500 per month. Additionally, the defendant was obligated to pay a penalty of 5% if payment was not made within ten (10) days of the due date.

Published on: May 7, 2014

Mother Seeks to Vacate Child Support Order Based on Alienation of the Children

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in this Child support case, the Court posed the question to counsel, as to whether a hearing on alienation was necessary, in view of a prior hearing held by this Court. The Court set a briefing schedule for the parties. The Mother has timely filed her memorandum of law as the proponent that the question of alienation must be heard by this Court, at a hearing. The Father has submitted no opposition whatsoever. The genesis of the Mother’s instant application is that after this Court’s decision previously rendered, she must continue to make payment of the existing order of support; and she wishes to vacate that order upon the basis of alleged alienation of the children.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that it is not clear as to whether the Mother alleges that alienation is a result of the Father’s actions, or is a result of the actions of the child/children themselves. Paragraph 8 of the Mother’s memorandum of law states that in this Court’s decision upon the prior matter, the Court only evaluated whether visitation would be contrary to the children’s best interests and thus detrimental to their welfare in determining what is in the children’s best interests, the Court did not undergo an analysis of the cause of why visitation is detrimental to the children. The Court never addressed whether the children have alienated themselves from the mother.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the Mother continues in Paragraph 9 of her memorandum, that the issue of alienation is still ripe for litigation, the court has not yet addressed the issue of fault and alienation in determining whether or not the children should have visitation with the Mother. The court only concluded that such visitation would be contrary to the children’s best interests, but did not determine whether the negative effect was caused by alienation.

Published on: May 5, 2014

Wife Goes After Back Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 12, 1985, the defendant former husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 16, 1991, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found him in contempt of court and granted the plaintiff former wife a judgment for child support arrears in the amount of $17,040.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the parties were divorced in April 1985 in Nassau County and, pursuant to the terms of the divorce judgment, the former wife was granted sole custody of the parties’ two children, and the former husband was required to pay child support of $60 a week. In 1990, the former wife brought a motion to hold the former husband in contempt based on his failure to pay child support for approximately five years. At a hearing on the contempt motion, the former husband did not dispute that the arrears amounted to $17,040. He argued, however, that the court should consider his application, allegedly pending since 1985, for the elimination of his child support obligation. A Nassau Order of Protection Lawyer said that, in his 1985 motion, the former husband sought, inter alia, transfer of custody of the children and the elimination of his child support obligation based on his allegation that the former wife’s relocation to Dutchess County interfered with his visitation rights. Following a hearing on the motion in 1987, the court determined that the former wife’s relocation did not interfere with his visitation rights and that a transfer of custody was not in the best interest of the children. Because the court did not specifically address the issue of child support in its 1987 decision and order, the former husband now contends that his application to eliminate child support remained pending at the time of the contempt hearing.

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the court erred in citing defendant in contempt of court and granted the plaintiff former wife a judgment for child support arrears in the amount of $17,040.

Published on: May 4, 2014

Dept. of Social Services Files Case Regarding Abuse of Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on July 11, 1984, the subject child born June 1, 1984, was removed from the care of her parents, and placed in foster care by the Nassau County Department of Social Services, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1024. On July 12, 1984, the Department of Social Services filed a neglect petition under docket N-250-84, alleging that Cassandra is a neglected child as defined by § 1012 of the Family Court Act, in that: On or about July 10, 1984, respondent-father beat said child’s half sibling, to a degree that it caused said half sibling death on July 11, 1984. Respondent-father beat said half sibling with such force and effect to cause said half sibling to hemorrhage into his abdomen which was a result of lacerations of the mesentery, with a rupture of the small bowel. In addition, said half sibling had multiple rib fractures on both sides. Respondent-mother was present while said half sibling was being beaten and failed to take any steps whatsoever to prevent it from happening or continuing. It is most likely that said child will be treated in a similar manner.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, by order of this Court, dated July 18, 1984, temporary physical custody of the subject child was placed in the Department of Social Services. By amended temporary order of October 26, 1984, temporary physical custody was continued in the Department of Social Services, with visitation for the parents to be arranged by the Department. On March 28, 1985, the Court ordered the Department of Social Services to arrange visitation for the respondents with Cassandra for one hour each week in the Nassau County Correctional Center. There was a final disposition of the neglect petition. On that date the Court, on consent, adjudged the subject child to be an abused child within the meaning of Article 10 of the Family Court Act, based on the conviction of Eleanor C of Criminally Negligent Homicide in the County Court and ordered that she be placed in the full custody of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for a period of eighteen months, with visitation to the mother arranged by the Department at the Nassau County Correction Center or any other place of confinement. The order further provided that the mother may make application for full custody of the subject child upon her release. On March 18, 1986, there was a final disposition of the neglect petition. The respondent-father waived a dispositional hearing and shared custody of the subject child was placed in the Department of Social Services for a period of eighteen months.

A Westchester County Family Lawyer said that, shortly after the emergency removal and the commencement of the above-mentioned neglect proceeding, the subject child’s paternal grandmother, filed a petition, and dated July 27, 1984, seeking full custody of the subject child. The petitioner testified on her own behalf and called a psychiatrist, and Senior Consulting Psychiatrist, Nassau County Department of Mental Health, as witnesses. A home study of the family, conducted by the Department of Social Services of New Brunswick, Canada, was received in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit I. The mental health evaluation made by the psychiatrist pursuant to the stipulation executed by the parties and their respective attorneys was received in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit II and a report of interviews with the family conducted by him was placed in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit III.

Published on: May 3, 2014

The Issue in this Case is Whether the Court Erred in Awarding the Father Sole Custody of the Child, with Liberal Visitation to the Mother.

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, this is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered April 28, 2009 in Ulster County, which, among other things, awarded plaintiff custody of the parties’ child. Plaintiff (hereinafter the father) and defendant (hereinafter the mother) were married in 2004 and are the parents of a daughter (born in 2005). Within weeks of her birth, the couple began experiencing marital difficulties, stemming from the father’s growing concern about the mother’s mental health. In January 2006, when the child was just five weeks old, the mother vacated the couple’s marital residence in Ulster County and traveled to Nassau County with the child. The father immediately initiated a proceeding in Ulster county Family Court requesting joint custody of the child and an order prohibiting the mother from removing the child from the County. Family Court issued an interim order restricting the mother from leaving the state with the child and set a prompt return date.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, a flurry of litigation between the parties ensued. As relevant to this appeal, within days of the mother’s departure, each party commenced an action for divorce in Supreme Court, the father in Ulster County and the mother in Nassau County, each moving, by order to show cause, for an award of full custody of the child. The actions were consolidated and venue was placed in Ulster County. The mother was initially granted temporary custody of the child, with supervised visitation to the father, and remained in Nassau County during the pendency of the action. Throughout the course of the litigation, the father sought and was awarded increased visitation with the child. By September 2007, when the child was 21 months old, the parties had stipulated to a temporary custody and visitation schedule which provided generous unsupervised and overnight visitation to the father. The parties agreed to proceed to trial on the issues of shared custody and visitation only. Following a 29-day trial, Supreme Court awarded the father sole custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the mother on a set schedule to continue at least until the child began pre-kindergarten. The mother appealed.

A Manhattan Family Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the court erred in awarding the father sole custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the mother.

Published on: May 2, 2014

Department of Social Services Files Petition to Remove Child from Home

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on or about July 5, 2007, the Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter “DSS”) filed petitions against the respondent, seeking the removal of her two children. On the same date, the respondent filed petitions seeking the return of her sons pursuant to FCA § 1028. A hearing was held and on July 24, 2007 respondent’s return petition was denied and the children remained in the physical custody of DSS.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the respondent consented to a finding of neglect in the underlying neglect petition. The Order of Custody to DSS was vacated; a one year Order of Supervision was entered and the children were returned to the respondent. The terms of the Order indicated that the respondent was to cooperate with DSS and Preventive Services, and attend the PACT program. Thereafter, the respondent voluntarily placed the children in foster care, as she reported to be suffering from depression at that time. The children were placed in the home of a certified foster parent, where they continue to reside. The first subject child was three years old and the other was ten months old at the time that they were placed in the foster parent’s home.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the respondent gave birth to her third child, Emma P., on October 10, 2008. On February 9, 2009, DSS filed a neglect petition against the respondent, on behalf of this child, in Nassau County. On February 25, 2009 the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter “ACS”) additionally filed neglect petitions against the respondent in Queens County where the respondent had been living regarding the same child. The Queens County Court paroled the child to the non-respondent father, with supervision by ACS. Additionally, the Court issued a Temporary Order of Protection, which vacated the respondent from the home, prohibited the respondent from having any contact with the child if under the influence of drugs or alcohol and only allowed for agency supervised visits. Upon consultation with this Court, the case was transferred to Nassau County Family Court on or about April 2, 2009.

Published on: May 1, 2014

Court Decides on on New Job for Family Court Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and a related habeas corpus proceeding, the attorney for the children appeals (1), by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 3, 2010, which, without a hearing, awarded temporary child custody of the children to the father until March 14, 2011, and (2) from an order of the same court dated May 21, 2010, which sustained the father’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the mother to return the children to the father. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 12, 2010, enforcement of the orders was stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeals.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, this case involves a custody dispute between the father of the subject children, who are teenagers, and their adult sister, who had custody of the subject children, based upon an agreement with the mother, which was later revoked.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in granting custody to the father.

Published on: April 30, 2014

Court Rules on Mother’s Motion for Attorney Fees

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a child support proceeding, a father appeals from an order of the court, which denied his objection and granted the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Subsequently, the court ordered to reverse the previous decision, on the law, without costs or disbursements, so much of the order, as granted the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee. The matter is also remitted to the family court, for a new determination of the mother’s motion.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said sources revealed that in a previous related case, the court stated that even if the matter of counsel fees is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, it is nonetheless controlled by the equities of the case and the financial circumstances of the parties.