Custody

Published on: April 17, 2012

Court Lacks Jurisiction to Modify Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 26 June 1983, the parties married in Rhode Island, later moved to that state, where a son was born on 13 August 1990. On 1 July 1994, the parties were divorced in Rhode Island after a contested trial in that state’s Family Court, which awarded the parties joint custody of the child with physical custody awarded to the mother, who was given responsibility for all decisions concerning the child’s education and religious upbringing. All other decisions concerning the child were to be jointly decided by the parties. The court awarded extensive visitation to the father, an attorney, who was directed to pay child support of $1,500 per month. In pertinent part, the judgment of divorce states: “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decisions concerning custody and visitation in accordance with the provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.”

From his birth until the fall of 1994, the child resided in Providence, Rhode Island. After the parties’ separation in 1992, the child had frequent and extensive contact with his father during the week and on alternate weekends. On 10 November 1994, after a hearing, the Rhode Island Family Court entered an order permitting the mother to relocate to New York on condition that the father have extensive visitation in Rhode Island, including, inter alia, three weekends every month. The order required the mother to deliver the child and pick him up from Providence on two weekends and New Haven, Connecticut on the other weekend and to bear the cost thereof. A New York Family Lawyer said the order further provided, “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decision concerning custody, visitation and child support, and shall be in accordance with provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended 15-14-1 through 26.” The parties substantially adhered to these provisions from November 1994 to the present.

On 12 September 2003, the mother commenced the instant proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County for an order “a) modifying the extraordinary visitation schedule entered almost nine years ago; and b) modifying and enforcing the child support provisions established pursuant to the parties’ divorce over nine years ago.”

Published on: April 14, 2012

Court Decides if Child Support Obligations can be Waived

by Stephen Bilkis

Anna O’Connor is the respondent and James G. Curcio is the appellant in this case.

The father is appealing to recover child support payments.

The issue became whether or not child support payments that are due can be waived because of an order of judgment. As long as the obligation to make those payments hasn’t occurred, they can be waived.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Decides if Parent of Emancipated Child Should Receive Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Thomas B. is the respondent and Lydia D. is the appellant.

History

Two parents tried to come to a written agreement where child support payments would be terminated because the child being supported had obtained a full time job. However, economic independence of a child is not enough reason to discontinue required child support payments.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Court Rules on Adjustment of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the plaintiff is Margaret A., and Shawn B. is the defendant.

Modification of Child Support

Three circumstances entitled a person to seek an adjustment of assessed child support. The first is if a drastic change in circumstances occurs. The second is if either party’s income has changed by more than 15% since the last time the order was modified or from when it was entered. Finally, it can be challenged for modification if it has been more than three years since an order was entered on the matter.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Determines if Couple was Married through Common Law Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Family 19

This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.

Original Case

Published on: April 10, 2012

Defendan Claims Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the father and the respondent in the case is the Department of Children and Families. The lawyer for the petitioner is Kathleen K. Pena from the Law Office of Kathleen K. Pena. The lawyers for the respondent are Charles J. Crist, Jr., The Attorney General, and Lori R. Shapiro, the Assistant Attorney General of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The judge for the case is J. Klein.

Petitioner’s Case

The petitioner in this particular case is seeking a petition for writ of prohibition for one of his children, T.S. He states that the state of Florida does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of T.S., his child. The petitioner states that he should be granted the petition based on the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514 in the Florida Statutes. He states that as the child, T.S. was not born while they resided in Florida, the state does not have proper jurisdiction to handle this particular case.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Determines if Common Law Marriage is Valid

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.

Original Case

This is a divorce hearing that dealt with a divorce, suit money, and counsel fees as well as both temporary and permanent alimony. The relief in the case deals with a common law marriage. There is a petition for certiorari that seeks to end an order that holds that a common law marriage is not sufficient to support alimony, suit money, and attorney’s fees.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Reviews Child Support Based on CSSA Guidelines

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Ronald A. Usenza and Maura G. Gannon were both respondents and petitioners, while Maura G. Gannon was named only as a respondent.

The father objected to the Findings of Fact and order which occurred after a reversal and remand was issued by the Appellate Division. Now, the Support Magistrate must once again take up the issue and make a ruling on the child support issues based only on information presented in the original petitions from the year 2000, as everything submitted after that point is invalid and must not be taken into account.

History

Published on: April 8, 2012

Sexual Assault Allegations Affect Child Support Ruling

by Stephen Bilkis

Frances W. is the petitioner and Steven M. is the respondent.

The Issue

The petitioner sought an order of child support against the respondent which was subsequently denied after a hearing.

Published on: April 6, 2012

Court Hears Reverse Paternity Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Matthew G. Czajak is the petitioner and Donna A. Vavonese is the respondent.

The Background

The Family Court Act provides jurisdiction over paternity to Family Court only when determining issues of support. The Family Court does not have the authority to ascertain status except when involved in adoption proceedings. A New York Custody Lawyer said that a father looking to establish paternity when the child is being supported by the mother’s ex-husband cannot be determined here due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction.