Articles Posted in Custody

The sanctity of the American home is considered one of the most vital of all rights in this free society. It is because of this attitude that search and seizure laws are constantly being revisited. The American jurisprudence system obtained the roots of its procedural law from the old English version of common law. A New York Family Lawyer said that one of the main issues of strife between the colonists and the English authorities was the invasion of colonist’s homes without a warrant. On the other side of the coin was that the authority to enter a home without a warrant was established as a means to ensure the health and peace of the citizenry at any time. It has been reviewed numerous times. Some people still contend that the ability to force entry into a person’s home for the purpose of arresting them without a warrant is legal under the common law approach from English law.

Most Americans believe that their homes are secure from invasion by the government as long as the government agent does not have probable cause to obtain a warrant. Prior to 1961, New York like most other states, conducted warrantless searches of a person’s home whenever they could show that they had probable cause to believe that the person lived at the residence. In 1961, Dolree Mapp was in her home when Ohio police officers arrived and demanded entry to search for her boyfriend. A New York Custody Lawyer said that Ms. Mapp demanded that they show her a warrant before she would let them in. The officers left, but returned shortly with a document that they claimed was a search warrant. Ms. Mapp snatched the paper and put it down the front of her dress. A police officer retrieved it and she was arrested for having indecent materials in a box in her cellar. She claimed that the indecent material was nude drawings from her art class. Ms. Mapp was convicted and appealed her conviction. Her Supreme Court case became a landmark case that created the requirement of search warrants at the state as well as the federal level. Prior to 1961, state officials could conduct a warrantless search to arrest a person whom they believed was guilty of a felony. Following Mapp v Ohio, warrants became required by state officials. This case changed many procedures.

It is surprising then that this argument is still being challenged. However, the sanctity of a person’s home should not be violated lightly. American’s hold the sanctity of home in high regard, that leaves the question of the constitutionality of warrantless arrests in the home unanswered. It is held as common knowledge that an officer may arrest a felon in a public place without the benefit of a warrant. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the warrantless arrest of a felon in the sanctity of their own homes is a different situation. As years progress, the requirements tighten to ensure that officers respect at all cost the sanctity of a person’s home. The arrest or seizure of a person in a public place, is less intrusive and should not be held to the same standard as an invasion of a citizen’s home. That being said, the history has been clear that no person need allow an official of the state to enter their homes without a warrant. There are exigent circumstances such as the endangerment of life that allow such intrusions. Exigent circumstances are those circumstances that are so time sensitive that a person could be seriously injured or killed if the time is taken to secure a warrant. A Queens Family Lawyer said that under exigent circumstances, an officer may enter a person’s home in order to prevent a greater wrong from being done.

Continue reading

A husband and wife separated in 1982. In their separation agreement, the former spouses agreed that the mother would have child custody and the father would have reasonable visitation rights upon 48 hours’ notice. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother also agreed that the mother would not remove the children more than 200 miles away from New York without their father’s consent. The separation agreement was entered into as a stipulated agreement of a custody petition filed by the father in the family court of New York. The father’s visitation rights were specified to be weekdays and weekend visitation on his days off from work up to a maximum of ten days per month.

A year later, the father applied to the family court to vacate the stipulated agreement because the mother had moved his children to California without his knowledge or consent. The father also moved for child custody be removed from his wife and to be given to him instead.

The mother opposed the motion stating that her husband agreed for her to move to California with their children. She also alleged that her husband who was a New York police officer often threatened her and her children with violence. She also alleged that the father did not frequently visit his children. A New York Custody Lawyer said he visited them for only ten days within a one year period. She also states that in California, she lives in the same house with her two brothers who help her take care of her children. Her parents also live nearby and see the children often.

Continue reading

A lawsuit appeal arises out from a family court decision that the court has lacked authority in a custody modification proceeding after a mother fled with her five-year-old son to another country in the middle of the proceeding. A New York Family Lawyer said the court however reversed the said decision.

A complainant father is a United States citizen and his wife as an Italian national who is also a United States citizen and has one child, born in Italy and has dual citizenship.

Apparently, a decision of the divorce was entered in New York. The court finds that it had no authority over custody issues of the child because the boy had lived in New York for only 9 out of his 27 months since birth. As a result, there were no court orders in New York with regard to child custody, visitation or maintenance. Subsequent in filing of the proceedings, the mother filed same proceedings in Rome and the father was permitted to the court in Rome to enter orders for child custody and visitation.

Continue reading

A trained undercover state police officer has purchased heroin from a seller (herein respondent) through the open doorway of an apartment. Subsequently, the police undercover described the seller to another police officer as being a colored man, approximately five feet eleven inches tall, dark complexion, black hair, short Afro style, and having high cheekbones, and of heavy build. A New York Family Lawyer said such other police officer, suspecting from the description that respondent might be the seller, then left a police photograph of respondent at the office of the police undercover, who viewed it two days later and identified it as the picture of the seller.

Consequently, respondent was charged with possession and sale of heroin, a drug crime in violation of the criminal law.

At trial, the aforesaid photograph was received in evidence without objection and the police undercover testified that there was no doubt that the person shown in the photograph was respondent and also made a positive in-court identification without objection.

Continue reading

A man and his wife were residents of California and were married in California in October 1975. Their daughter was born also in California on January 29, 1977. Two years after their marriage and not soon after their daughter was born, their marital problems drove them to a trial separation.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother and the daughter came to New York. The father joined them in New York and stayed with them for six weeks but he returned to California. A year after that, in 1978, the mother and her daughter returned to California. They stayed there until 1979. After this, the mother and her daughter returned to New York and continued to live there.

The husband who stayed in California filed a divorce proceeding in the Superior Court of California. A New York Custody Lawyer said the judge there ordered their divorce and awarded sole child custody of their daughter to the mother and gave the father reasonable visitation rights.

Continue reading

The accused and his victim had an “on and off” intimate relationship from January 1996 to June 199. In early June of 1997, they had an argument in which he accused her of having an affair with another man. After this argument, the victim broke off contact with him and moved out of his apartment. A New York Family Lawyer said that for over a month, he attempted repeatedly to reconcile with her. Desperate to contact her, the accused left an urgent message with the victim’s family friend stating that he was going to be hospitalized. In response, she called him that evening. During the conversation, the accused lied to the victim and told her that he had cancer. The victim then promised to visit him on 11 July 1997, between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.

On 11 July 1997, the victim arrived at the home of the accused at around 1:00 p.m. The accused was agitated because the victim was late. They first discussed his medical situation. The accused then shifted the focus of their conversation to his desire to have her back. He led her into his bedroom where the conversation continued. When she told him that she did not love him in the manner that he had thought and that she had to get her things from his apartment, he flew into a rage and punched her. He then picked up a hammer and struck her, causing her to fall. A New York Custody Lawyer said while in the process of striking her again, he lost his balance and fell on top of her. She managed to grab the hammer out of his hand. However, he found another hammer and continued striking her. The accused then went to the kitchen, retrieved a knife, and began stabbing her. Finally, he drove the knife into her throat and held it there until she died. The cause of death was multiple blunt and sharp force trauma injuries.

At the trial, the court found that the murder (domestic violence) was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and gave this aggravating circumstance a great weight. According to the County Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy, there were 144 wounds inflicted on the victim, fifty-seven of which were blunt force trauma injuries consistent with being struck by the flat and claw side of a hammer. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the remaining eighty-seven wounds were sharp force wounds consisting of forty-one stab wounds (i.e., the wounds were deeper than they were long) and forty-six incise wounds (i.e., the wounds were longer than they were deep). The victim had multiple defensive wounds on the palms of her hands and on her arms from blocking the blows and grabbing for a weapon. The examiner testified that she was alive for all but one of the 144 stab wounds and hammer blows. The brutality of the attack, coupled with her defensive wounds, bodily movements, and blood spatter, suggested that she knew she was fighting for her life and was aware of her impending death.

Continue reading

On 18 May 1981, in the hopes of forming a family, appellant husband and his wife got married in Queens, New York. The parties then resided in West Germany until May 1983 when the wife left West Germany and moved to Montgomery, Alabama.

A New York Family Lawyer said the husband has petitioned the court for the dissolution of his marriage and filed it in Okaloosa County, Florida. He alleges that he is currently domiciled in Okaloosa County and has been a resident of Florida for at least six months before filing his petition.

In opposition, the wife moves to dismiss the petition and states that the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because the husband has not been a physical resident of the State of Florida for at least six months next prior to the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.

A man and a woman married in New York and a daughter was born. The wife claims that they moved to Israel in 1987, with the intention of living there permanently. Although they purchased an apartment in Israel, the husband claims that he had no intention of permanently relocating there and had applied for permanent residency in that country only to obtain government benefits for his wife and daughter. It appears that the husband returned to New York in 1987 and has lived here ever since. A New York Family Lawyer said he is an Israeli citizen and their daughter who is a citizen of both the United States and Israel, have remained in Israel and continue to reside there.

In September of 1989, during religious divorce proceedings initiated by the husband, the Rabbinical Court of Israel, which has jurisdiction over matrimonial matters, awarded the child custody of the daughter to the wife and prohibited removal of the child from Israel without the permission of the Rabbinical Court. On December 12, 1989, the Rabbinical Court ordered the husband to pay his wife a guarantee for alimony and child support payments. A New York Custody Lawyer said the husband did not follow through with the religious divorce at that time.

The husband obtained a default judgment in court, awarding him a judgment of divorce upon the ground of abandonment. The divorce decree awarded joint child custody of the daughter and directed the husband to continue paying monthly child support. The parties were also ordered to sell the apartment in Israel and to split the proceeds, when either the daughter reaches emancipation or the wife remarries. It appears from the Judgment of Divorce that the court was not made aware of the prior proceedings in Israel.

Continue reading