Custody

Published on: February 18, 2013

Children Placed in Foster Care

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 he 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. A New York Custody Lawyer said in the children’s birth certificates, the man was listed as their father and the children used his surname. 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: January 28, 2013

Court Maintains that Modification of Custody Must Benefit the Child

by Stephen Bilkis

On 1 September 2009, a Family Court in Kings County issued an order which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order of the same court dated 3 August 2004, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subject child with visitation to the mother; denied the mother’s petition for sole legal and physical custody of the subject child, and denied her application to relocate with the subject child to Newburgh, New York. Thus, a New York Family Lawyer said in related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act Article 6, the mother appeals from the said order.

The court finds that the order must be affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the rules, a relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child. To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child. A New York Custody Lawyer said the best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances. Deference should be accorded to the credibility determinations of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and the hearing court’s determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Court Says to Alter Existing Custody Arrangment there Must be a Change of Material Circumstances

by Stephen Bilkis

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment, the complainant husband appeals from the decision and filed an instant action for a divorce and ancillary relief against his wife. Prior to the entry of the divorce decision, the husband and wife entered into a duly executed stipulation of settlement, which awarded the wife of their children’s custody. The stipulation was incorporated but not merged in the decision of divorce. A New York Family Lawyer said the following to the execution of the stipulation and the entry of the decision, the wife moved to enforce certain terms of the stipulation. Thereafter, the husband sought to transfer the custody of the two minor children to him or to increase his visitation and to suspend or reduce his agreed-upon child support payments.

The court correctly determined that there must be no change of custody of the parties’ two children. Consequently, the court properly refused to transfer custody to the father, or increase his visitation. The mother’s position with regard to visitation did not raise to the level of active interference with or deliberate frustration of the husband’s visitation rights. In addition, the court also examined the husband’s remaining contentions and find that they lack merit.

In another trial, another father also filed an appeal from an order of the family court. The complainant father sought a modification of a decision to permit him to have visitation with his daughter. Based on records, a New York Custody Lawyer said to warrant modification of an order fixing visitation, there must be a change of circumstances, and the change must be material

Published on: January 25, 2013

Husband Seeks to Increase Custody Based on a Stipulation

by Stephen Bilkis

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment, the complainant husband appeals from the decision and filed an instant action for a divorce and ancillary relief against his wife. A New York Family Lawyer said that prior to the entry of the divorce decision, the husband and wife entered into a duly executed stipulation of settlement, which awarded the wife of their children’s custody. The stipulation was incorporated but not merged in the decision of divorce. Following to the execution of the stipulation and the entry of the decision, the wife moved to enforce certain terms of the stipulation. Thereafter, the husband sought to transfer the custody of the two minor children to him or to increase his visitation and to suspend or reduce his agreed-upon child support payments.

The court correctly determined that there must be no change of custody of the parties’ two children. Consequently, the court properly refused to transfer custody to the father, or increase his visitation. The mother’s position with regard to visitation did not raise to the level of active interference with or deliberate frustration of the husband’s visitation rights. In addition, the court also examined the husband’s remaining contentions and find that they lack merit.

In another trial, another father also filed an appeal from an order of the family court. A New York Custody Lawyer said the complainant father sought a modification of a decision to permit him to have visitation with his daughter. Based on records, to warrant modification of an order fixing visitation, there must be a change of circumstances, and the change must be material.

Published on: January 24, 2013

Court Terminates Respondent’s Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

First Case:

On or about 20 December 2010, a Family Court in Bronx County issued an order which, upon the mother’s default at a combined fact-finding and dispositional hearing, terminated the mother’s parental rights to the subject child upon a finding of permanent neglect, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said that thereafter, the respondent mother moved to vacate the order of disposition. On or about 21 March 2011, the same court denied the said motion. Thus, an appeal of the said denial followed.

The court finds that the denial must be affirmed, without costs; the appeal must be dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable paper.

Published on: January 24, 2013

Responded Taken into Custody Child Removed from Home

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the mother of the two subject children, a boy and a girl. Respondent also has an older daughter, currently a third year student, visits the home on some weekends and during school vacations.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that in February 2008, respondent was arrested and the children services removed the son and the daughter from her care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1024 prior to the filing of a petition. On February 15 2008, the children services filed petitions against respondent in Kings County Family Court. The petitions allege that the mother neglected the child, by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon him. Specifically, the petitions allege that, on that day, NYPD responded to a 911 call made from a business near the case address after the son left the home because his mother beat him with a belt. The petitions further allege that the son reported that the beating took place after his mother learned that he had failed a number of classes. When the son tried to get away, the mother allegedly grabbed him, tied him to the chair and hit him again. The son also reported that his mother had used physical discipline in the past although this time was worse than other times. Finally, the petitions allege that the daughter is a derivatively neglected child by virtue of the neglect of the son.

On the day the petitions were filed, the judge granted the request of the children services for a removal of the children and temporarily released them to their maternal aunt. The judge entered a temporary order of protection against respondent on behalf of the children directing that she refrain from the use of corporal punishment. A New York Family Lawyer said the Judge also ordered that the mother have liberal supervised visitation at the aunt’s home.

Published on: January 19, 2013

Plaintiff Contends Husband’s Estate Undervalued in Divorce Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a legal malpractice case being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in New York County. The plaintiff, SH, is seeking to recover damages against the defendant, LG, for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. The defendant has moved for an order to dismiss the complaints that have been made by the plaintiff. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant argues that the issues are time-barred and that the complaint does not state a cause of action and a complete defense is available through documentary evidence. In response the move made by the defendant, the plaintiff has made a cross motion to amend her complaint.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the defendant represented her from 2004 through the spring of 2007. The representation was in regard to her divorce from her husband, CH. The plaintiff states that while handling the divorce proceedings the defendant failed to conduct an adequate discovery of the assets of CH and failed to adequately analyze the entire estate of the marriage. The plaintiff alleges that this failure caused the marital estate to be undervalued and resulted in the plaintiff settling the divorce on unfavorable terms. She further states that the child support payments that are made by LG are inadequate as a result.

Published on: January 18, 2013

Husband Feels Divorce was Fraudulently Maintained

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matrimonial action taking place in the Appellate division of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The respondent in the case is Wilma Shaw and the appellant in the case is Peter Shaw. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a previous order made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that denied his motion to set aside the judgment for divorce that was entered on the 21st of July, 1980 and a stipulation settlement from February of 1981 that divided certain property of the marriage that had been owned jointly.

Case Background

The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married in 1966 in England. The couple has three children together who are fourteen, eight, and four years old. In 1980, the plaintiff commenced a divorce action against the husband alleging that the defendant had engaged in cruel and inhuman conduct toward her. The defendant failed to answer and a judgment of divorce was awarded to the plaintiff and entered on the 21st of July, 1980.

Published on: January 17, 2013

Can an Orthodox Jewish Divorce bar a Divorce in New York?

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being held before the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. The issue involves the question of whether or not the delivery of an Orthodox Jewish divorce, called a “Get” can be registered in the state of Israel and act as a bar for litigation pertaining to a divorce in the state of New York. The plaintiff in this particular case is Alexander Tsirlin and the defendant of the case is Alla Tsirlin.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff husband began this action on the 11th of July, 2006 to obtain a divorce on the ground of abandonment and an order to grant the couple joint custody of their son Jonathon, with the wife obtaining physical custody and a set visitation schedule provided to the husband. He also requested a set amount of child support in accordance with child support standards.

Published on: January 16, 2013

Petitioner Claims Mexican Divorce is Invalid

by Stephen Bilkis

Dolores Lamb, the petitioner in this case is seeking support from the respondent for herself and her three children. The respondent in this case is Charles Lamb. The case is being heard in the Family Court in the City of New York located in New York County.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said this case provides and interesting set of circumstances as brought forth by the respondent. The respondent was married to the petitioner in a ceremony held in Connecticut on the 23 of September, 1954. At this particular time, the respondent’s former wife “Marjorie” was still alive, but mentally incompetent and homed in an institution.