Custody

Published on: November 5, 2012

Stepfather Seeks to Adopt Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman fell in love in 1976. They moved in together for five years. And their relationship produced a daughter. During this time, the couple used and dealt drugs. Both of them were apprehended and charged with possession of controlled substances. A New York Family Lawyer said the woman pleaded guilty and was put on probation. Since that time, she has been drug-free.

Her husband was imprisoned but was later released on parole. While on parole, he became a fugitive. He left New York and could not be located. He called his wife after a few months and asked her to leave New York and travel to Chicago, Illinois to join him there. The wife refused because it would be breaking the conditions of her probation and it would endanger the life of her daughter. From that time the woman had not had any contact with her husband.

While they were together, the husband supported their child intermittently because his work as a painter was intermittent. When her husband became a fugitive the support ended. The woman was forced to get a job and move in with her mother who took care of her baby while she was away at work.

Published on: November 4, 2012

Parent Seeks to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the parties were divorced by judgment dated February 13, 2003. The Appellant father appealed from the order of the Supreme Court, Queens County dated August 28, 2009, which granted the Respondent mother’s motion for permission to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ child.

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties in this case separated shortly after their daughter was born in 2000. They divorced in 2003, after a 2 1/2-year marriage. While the Respondent mother had child custody pursuant to a stipulation of settlement in the divorce proceeding, the child spent the first three weekends of each month with the Appellant father and his family, in addition to holidays and summer vacation.

The Respondent mother moved in the Supreme Court for permission to relocate to North Carolina with the child. At an expedited hearing, Respondent mother asserted that she desired a new beginning for herself and the child and that they would enjoy a higher standard of living and an improved quality of life. A New York Custody Lawyer said that while Respondent mother initially proposed continuing the Appellant father’s existing visitation and bearing the expense of flying the child to New York three times per month, she subsequently suggested reducing the Appellant father’s visitation to one visit per month, with extended summer vacation.

Published on: November 3, 2012

Father Seeks Full Custody of Child

by Stephen Bilkis

Each party to these post-judgment proceedings seeks modification of the Judgment of Divorce from joint custody to sole custody. The issue in the father’s case is whether the mother’s allegation of sexual abuse of the child involving the father and her request of the Court to restrict his access to the child constitutes a change of circumstances to modify the award of joint custody with physical residence to the mother, and if so, whether it is in the best interest of the child for sole custody and physical residence to be awarded to the father. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother in her petition alleges the father is an unfit parent based on the sexual abuse allegations and requests his visitation be eliminated or supervised. The Court finds that there has been a sufficient change of circumstances and it is in the best interests of the child for her father to be granted sole custody.

The parties to this custody proceeding were married on September 7, 1991. There is one child of the marriage, born on July 27, 1995. They were divorced by Judgment of Divorce dated October 11, 1999 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Judgment incorporated a Stipulation of Settlement entered into between the parties on the record in Court on July 30, 1999, and a written stipulation regarding custody, dated July 30, 1999, which survives and is not merged in the Judgment, and pursuant to which the parties share joint child custody, with primary physical child custody to the mother. The Supreme Court did not retain exclusive jurisdiction to modify the Judgment. The father was awarded child visitation schedule that consisted of Wednesday evenings between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.; alternate weekends beginning Friday evenings at 6:00 p.m. through Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; and two weeks summer vacation in July and two weeks in August. The order also made provisions for holidays.

The complainant father and the opponent mother each seek modification of the Judgment and sole legal and physical custody of the child. A New York Custody Lawyer said the child has lived with her mother throughout her life. The father argues that the mother’s repeated fourth false accusation of sexual abuse, is indicative of the mother’s emotional instability and her attempts to frustrate his relationship with his daughter and that it is in the child’s best interest that the Judgment be modified to award him sole legal and physical custody. The Court finds that the mother’s fourth allegation of sexual abuse of the child is a sufficient change in circumstance, in that the mother, in part of a continuing pattern of attacks on the father in which she asked the Court to be her partner, interferes with and compromises his relationship with the child and, potentially, compromises the child’s future development. The Court finds that it is in the child’s best interest for custody to be awarded to the father in that continued joint custody and physical residence to the mother is detrimental to the child’s current and future development.

Published on: November 1, 2012

Mother Attempts to Get Children Out of Foster Care

by Stephen Bilkis

This appeal, brought by an authorized agency under social services, seeks to entrust the guardianship and child custody of three children to the agency for the purpose of consenting the adoption to the foster mother. A New York Family Lawyer said the children came into a foster care following the birth of the youngest child with positive toxicology for heroin. The court then directed the mother to enter in an inpatient drug program and complete a parenting skills class.

At initial progress note, the mother of the children told the case worker that she did not know what to do to get her kids back. The case worker informed the mother that there would be a conference to determine what services she would need. There is no evidence of when, or whether, such a conference was held or the outcome of the conference. Another case worker asked the mother whether she were enrolled in any drug program, and the mother presented the agency with proof that she completed the detoxification. The next entry, the case worker asked the mother why she had not gone to her program. The mother explained that she wanted to see her son who would be coming from upstate for the holidays.

The service plan review occurred and it was attended by the supervisor, case worker and service plan review coordinator. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said apparently, neither the foster mother nor the biological mother was present. The document reflects that the mother visited her children consistently at the agency and kinship foster home. The document revealed that the biological mother has entered & completed a seven day detoxification program. However, she has failed to enter a drug treatment program.

Published on: October 31, 2012

Agency Moves to have Parental Rights Terminated

by Stephen Bilkis

A neglect complaint was filed against a 16 years old mother alleging that she left her child with her mother and other unknown individuals without making adequate provisions for her care.

A New York Family Lawyer here were also allegations of poor hygiene and medical neglect with respect to a serious diaper rash. The 16 years old mother made an admission of neglect and her child was placed with the commissioner for an initial period of twelve months. The goal of the permanency plan was return to the parent and the young mother was expected to complete parenting skills classes, engage in therapy and to obtain suitable housing and employment in order to meet that goal.

A social service group was assigned as the foster care agency to manage the family. The record in court contains no evidence as to when the said agency received the contract. There are no records at all when the child was placed in care. Almost three full years, the agency placed into evidence and the only records documenting an assorted 13 months of casework by no less than five different caseworkers. The young mother testified on her own behalf and the law guardian consequently did not present any independent evidence.

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.