Custody

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.

Published on: October 25, 2012

Court Discusses Parental Rights of Imprisoned Father

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 said she 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. In the children’s birth certificates, the man was listed as their father and the children used his surname. A New York Custody Lawyer said 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: October 24, 2012

Plaintiff Requests a Bifurcation of Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said this is a divorce proceeding being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. The defendant in the matter is Thomas Hannigan and the plaintiff in the case is Barbara Hannigan.

Case Background

The plaintiff and the defendant are respectively 44 and 43 years old and have three children together. The children are 18, 13, and 11 years old. The couple was married on the fifteenth of June, 1985. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the plaintiffs have begun this matrimonial action on the 20th of June, 2005. The main issue in this dispute is how the marital property of the couple is going to be distributed. The marital property includes a substantial amount of real property that they own as tenants by the entirety, the money that is located in a bank account that is only in the name of the plaintiff, and the value of the business owned by the defendant and the value of the plaintiff’s nursing degree and nursing license.

Published on: October 23, 2012

Plaintiff Moved to Increase Alimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. The plaintiff in the matter is Ethel Phillips and the defendant is Gilbert L. Phillips. The plaintiff is seeking a separation from the defendant, who is her husband. Ms. Phillips alleges that the defendant has treated her cruelly and fails to provide fro her. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant denies these allegations and has entered a counterclaim seeking an annulment from the marriage. The defendant states that their marriage should be annulled because the plaintiff was still married to another individual at the time the couple was married.

Case Background

On the last day of March in the year 1950, the plaintiff obtained a divorce from her husband, Mr. Moss. This divorce was obtained in the state of Georgia in the Superior Court of Richmond County. At the time of the divorce the plaintiff stated that she had been a resident of Georgia for over a year before instituting the action for divorce. However, a New York Custody Lawyer said the plaintiff was actually still a New York state resident at that time. She had only been in Georgia for a couple of days and visited the state for the purpose of obtaining the divorce and no other reason. She had not established a residency in the state of Georgia. Moss, the plaintiff’s husband acknowledged the action in the Georgia court and did not contest the divorce. The decree from the Georgia court states that the divorce was granted to the plaintiff on the 31st of March, 1950. After the divorce took place, the plaintiff’s ex-husband Moss took on another spouse.

Published on: October 13, 2012

Child Placed in Foster Care Due to Parent’s Drug Use

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Michael D. who is a child that is under the age of eighteen and has been allegedly neglected by Tiffany D. This case is being heard in the Family Court of New York in Bronx County.

Case Background

The child in this case, Michael D. is only two years old. On the 5th of August, 2010, the attorney for the child moved to show case that the Administration of Children’s Services along with its contract agency, Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York were in contempt for disobedience of mandates that were made by the court. A New York Family Lawyer said the attorney for the child alleges that both the ACS and Little Flower agency violated the orders that were made in this court on the fourth of March, 2010 and the tenth of May, 2010, and these violations impaired and were prejudice against the child in the pending neglect proceeding.

Published on: October 10, 2012

Court Rules on Child Neglect Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an application for guardianship of a child pursuant to the provisions that are set up under the Social Services Law. The petitioner and appellant of the case is Graham Windham. The respondent of the case is Deborah K. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the child in this case is Shantal who was born on the 26th of November, 1970. In December of 1970 Shantal was placed with the Agency voluntarily as the mother had no home for the child to live in. Shantal was placed with a foster family until April of 1971. Shantal was returned to her mother at this time.

Published on: October 9, 2012

Court Reviews Joint Custody Agreement

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The petitioner and appellant of this case is Leroy D. West Sr. The respondent in this case is Racquel Vanderhorst. A New York Family Lawyer the petitioner and appellant in this case Leroy D. West Sr. is appealing an order that was made by the Referee Elizabeth Barnett in the Family Court of Bronx County. The order awarded the respondent mother, Racquel Vanderhorst with sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child. The petitioner father was given visitation rights in the order.

Case Discussion

When reviewing the facts of the case, the determination that was made by the Referee to modify the joint custody agreement of the couple was made on a substantial basis. The record shows that after the judgment for divorce was granted to the couple there was a complete breakdown of communication between the couple. A New York Custody Lawyer said there was an instance of domestic violence that occurred in the presence of the child. This made the possibility of joint custody as was agreed to in the divorce agreement, impossible.

Published on: October 4, 2012

Courts Decide Paternity Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with a paternity proceeding. The petitioner of the case is Felix O. The respondents in the case are Janette M. and Herbert M. The case is being heard in the Family Court of the State of New York in Kings County.

This is a petition made by Felix O. for an order to declare him to be the father of Precious Jewel M. and for an order to set his child support obligation. Respondents Janette M., the mother and Herbert M, the husband both oppose the petition. The respondents were married at the time of Precious Jewel’s birth and are still married now.

Felix filed the paternity petition on the 7th of January, 2004 when Precious Jewel was four and a half years old. For a number of reasons the case took a long time to conclude. None of the reasons were the fault of Felix. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondents, Janette and Herbert successfully evaded service for over a year and a half. Finally, a warrant was issued when Janette failed to appear the second time she was served. She was brought into court on the warrant on the fifth of August, 2004 and ordered to appear in court on the 29th of November, 2004. Herbert was issued a summons to appear as well. The date was then moved to the 15th of February, 2005.

Published on: October 1, 2012

Petitioner Seeks Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

This proceeding involves the petitioner and respondent Daniel R. III and the respondent and appellant Liza R, otherwise known as Liza U. The law guardian of the child is Howard M. Simms and is involved in this matter as well. This case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Case Discussion and Decision

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties in this case were divorced in a judgment issued by a court in the Dominican Republic. An order of visitation was entered in the Family Court of Bronx County around the 20th of April, 1993. The petitioner was awarded visitation rights.