Custody

Published on: January 27, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent’s Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

Bonnie Belair and Jarret Clark divorced with Ms. Belair having sole custody of their minor child. This was finalized in 1997. Mr. Clark was given limited visitation rights once he completes the parenting class that was ordered by the court. After this decision by the court, Mary Francis Drew, the child’s paternal grandmother, petitioned the court to get visitation rights. They cited the law that grants grandparent’s visitation rights in certain circumstances. By February 1999, Ms. Belair submitted her petition to the Trial Court saying that the statute violates her constitutional right to privacy.

The Trial Court refused to deliver a verdict about the constitutional challenge that was placed by Ms. Belair. They gave temporary visitation rights to Ms. Drew, which was also to be in the same place as agreed in the mediation. What Ms. Belair did was to submit a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari is an order made by a higher court about a case that they have reviewed, said a New York Family Lawyer. Ms. Belair’s petition said that because the Trial Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation law, her right to privacy was violated.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, they cited the case of Beagle vs. Beagle. It was said in that case that the state “may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.” They also said that in the same case, the court said that the best interest of the child is placed first even before there is proof of harm. The privacy that is to be expected should be no less than the one experienced while married. The question now is if the court has the right to decide whether to impose visitation rights on a parent who does not want it. The Supreme Court acknowledges that “care custody and management” is a fundamental liberty interest of a parent. The court said as well that the choice which relates to child rearing and education are fundamental rights covered by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The state does not have the right to interfere with these decisions, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and they reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

Published on: January 26, 2012

Court Rules on Louisiana Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case that affects two States, Sharon and Edward Heartfield were part of this not so uncommon situation. The two were divorced by the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Sharon was the one awarded custody of the children. Edward got visitation rights and was ordered to pay 2,025 per month for child support. Once the divorce was finalized, Sharon together with the three children moved to Louisiana and has lived there for about four years.

Three years after moving to Louisiana, Sharon filed a case with the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas to request for the modification of the child support. Edward responded with a cross-action where he asked for more visitation times, reduced amount of child support and to have the case transferred to Hardin County, Texas. The case was transferred to Hardin County, Texas as per request.

After this, Sharon asked the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana to issue a decision that says that the original order by the court for visitation and child support be executed. She filed a motion in the Hardin County court as well, to have them dismiss the action or move it to Orleans Parish. This was denied by the courts of Hardin County and about a month later after a hearing, they issued a modified decision. The new decision reduced the child-support payments to $1,800 per month. The court said this is also dependent on specific visitation rights. A month later, Edward filed affidavits saying that visitation was being denied so he did not pay the child support. This is when he filed for a temporary injunction order to stop Sharon from her claims in the Louisiana Court. He filed it with the States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. Sharon dropped her case connected to the child support but said that the visitation schedule threatened the well-being of her children. The injunction was granted by the Louisiana court.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Court Reverses Visitation for Parent with Domestic Violence Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

Jason Leigh Owens asked the court for unsupervised visitation with his four-year-old daughter. This was only after multiple once a month supervised visits at family visitation centers. The reason for the supervised visits was that Mr. Owens was convicted and jailed for a third-degree felony for domestic violence. After an evaluation, the court said that Mr. Owens has greatly improved with his control of his emotions, especially his anger. The supervised visitation has already been maximized, mentioned by a New York Family Lawyer. From the records, the court also said, it was in the best interest of the child to move forward and give Mr. Owens shared parental responsibility and frequent unsupervised visits.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the decision, the order was for the first eight months will have unsupervised visits in the city where the child lives. This was to be between ten in the morning to four in the afternoon every second and fourth Sunday of the month. Every third Saturday, he would have a full day and night unsupervised visits. This is from ten in the morning Saturday to four in the afternoon the following Sunday. Mr. Owens did not ask for the overnight visitation.

Kylie C. Doyle, the mother contested this decision. The first was that because the overnight visit was not even asked by Mr. Owens. She also said that the welfare of her child is not going to be protected if the visit is unsupervised. Each party is not contesting that Mr. Owen entitlement as he is not because of the conviction. What the mother is arguing about is the effect to her child and the evidence that supports it would be good for her child to be in it.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Issue When Parent Moves Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Michael Reed and Judy Mast were married. While they were married, they had a son, Jason. About four year into the marriage, the two had problems with their marriage and got a divorce. Mrs. Mast and Jason moved to a different location, same State. Mr. Reed moved to a different city for a new business. After a year, more or less, of regular visitation with his son, his visits became infrequent and even his child support had lowered because of difficulties in his business. Mr. Reed and Mrs. Mast had agreed that Jason would stay with his mother primarily, as long as they do not move the child to a different State permanently without a court’s approval. This was done before Mr. Reed moved to a Madison. A year later, the court’s final judgment had included this provision, said a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer.

About five months after the final judgment was the time Mrs. Mast got married to her current husband James Mast. Mr. Reed remarried around three months after. Mr. Mast joined the army and was stationed in North Carolina. He did this because of financial reasons. Mrs. Mast petitioned the court a little more than a year after her marriage to move to North Carolina to be with her husband and new child. She did move to North Carolina even before the decision, but she returned to Florida every other weekend with Jason so that Mr. Reed could have his time with him, which he never missed.

Mr. Reed argued that Mrs. Mast had permanently moved the child out of the State, that the move will hamper his relationship with his son, and he is capable of providing guidance. About eight months after the initial petition, the decision was granted in favor of Mr. Reed, and the primary residence was given to him. According to the records found by a Long Island Visitation Lawyer, this was appealed by Mrs. Mast.

Published on: January 24, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent’s Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother gave birth to her child on March 14, 1991. The mother died in December 1993 of cancer, said a New York Family Lawyer. About two months after her death, a girlfriend moved in with the father and daughter. The girlfriend and father eventually got married in October 1994, she adopted the daughter. By the late quarter of 1997, the couple went through divorce proceedings. This is when the child’s biological maternal grandparents, filed a petition with the court for visitation, which was granted by the Trial Court. The mother and father appealed against this decision.

According to the details given by both parties, the grandparents were in good terms with the father before their daughter died. It was also mentioned that they frequently visited with their grandchild. The relationship started to fall apart when the new wife came into the picture. At first, visitation with their granddaughter was reduced and after the adoption it ceased completely.

The grandparents argued with the law that says when one or both parents are deceased then, the grandparents may be given visitation rights. The father and his new wife argued that this violates their rights as parents of the child. The parties tried mediation but were unsuccessful, and the case went to trial.

Published on: January 23, 2012

Court Denies Proposed Relocation of Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother had filed an appeal against an order that disallows her to move to Texas with her two children. The mother had two sons with the father. They were born three years apart, said a New York Family Lawyer. Almost five years after the youngest was born, the parents divoced. In the final judgment for the dissolution of marriage, the court had them share parental responsibility. The custody of the children was given to the mother, with the father getting liberal visitation. The decision specifically said that the visitation is at least one night in a week plus every other weekend. A restriction on the relocation of the mother and the children was not provided in the decision.

The mother and her new husband lives in Texas with his son. They met when he was assigned in their area for an extended period. About a year and three months after the dissolution of the marriage was finalized, the mother filed a petition to change the visitation provisions because she will be marrying her new husband, and they would be moving to Texas. The father filed a case with the court asking for an injunctive relief. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said this was to prevent the mother from moving the children to Texas. It was granted by the court.

A final hearing was done in November 2004 where the new husband, the mother and the father testified. The new husband said he was a right-of-way agent for the oil and gas industry. According to him, he earns about $70,000 to $90,000 per year, his line of work though is not open in the current State. The mother’s testimony mentioned the benefits of moving the children to the smaller community of Ponder, Texas. She said her new husband has a new 3000-square-foot home and that there was a public school nearby. According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, the mother testified she was currently earning $58,000 per year, and can be promoted in her current employment. Once they move, she planned to be a stay at home mother, but if necessary, she could find a comparable employment in Texas. Although she does not have family in Texas, they are just two and a half hours away in Oklahoma. The father said he works nights, from eleven in the evening to half past seven in the morning. According to him, if he missed any scheduled visitation, it was because of work. Their normal activity of boating, fishing, bowling and other recreational stuff often include the children’s paternal grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins.

Published on: January 22, 2012

Court Rules on Child Visitation Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Three months into a couple’s brief marriage, they were separated and by the fifth month, wife filed for the dissolution of the marriage. When she filed the petition, she also said that she is with child. In her statement she testified that it was husband’s and her child, said a New York Family Lawyer. The husband denied being the father of the child at first, but after the child was born, the two had agreed on a marital settlement agreement. The husband agreed pay $119.14 per month for child support until the child is considered as an adult. The agreement also stated that he should pay for the medical expenses during pregnancy that was not covered by insurance. The wife was to have sole custody of the child, and she could change the surname. There was no mention of visitation rights.

About a year and a half after the agreement, a judgment of dissolution was taken by the court, basing it on the agreement of the two parties. The requirements and terms of the child support were repeated. Mr. McAlister asked his lawyer about the visitation rights and was given the answer he should not worry as he would have them. According to the transcript a Sufflok County Visitation Lawyer read, Mr. McAlister tried seeing the child at the wife’s residence after the baby was born but was turned away by the wife. He tried again a few months later but still the same thing.

The husband filed for a Supplemental Petition for Modification. This was to give him visitation rights to his child. The court denied his motion, but he appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeals said in their deliberation that a parent has a natural right to a significant relationship with their child. The only limit is how they act in front of their child, which should not negatively affect the child’s moral or welfare. The court also stated that the courts can grant sole custody with or without provisions for visitation rights of the other parent. In this case though, the Court of Appeals said that it was not even mentioned so there was no determination if the husband should have visitation rights or not. A Suffolk County Custody Lawyer read that they remanded the case back as to give the chance to the father to present his case with the best interest of the child for him to have the said rights.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Whether the Nonpayment of Support Effects Visitation Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple was married for about five years. A year into their marriage, the wife gave birth to their only child. A New York Family Lawyer said that in the final judgment in the dissolution of their marriage, the mother was given custody of their child. The father was granted visitation rights and based on their monthly income, ordered to pay $150 per month for child support plus $50 per month for the months before the final judgment.

In the year that followed the finalizing of the divorce, each party had brought numerous motions for contempt. The mother claimed the father was not paying child support. The father alleged visitation was being withheld. By December of the year that followed the dissolution, the father filed a petition without counsel to modify the provision for the child support saying because of illness and inability to pay. From what a Westchester Custody Lawyer found out, the father was able to show evidence of his illness and that his income has been reduced to $200 from $800. The $200 was coming from welfare benefits. This being the court still found him in wilful contempt and denied his motion to modify the child support. Part of the ruling was to reduce the child support to $75 each month even if the modification was denied. The court said as well, that visitation should be reinstated if father paid the May child support by May 2, and keeps it current.

Another was order was issued May 5 stating that the visitation is not to happen until he complies with the previous order and shows his child-support payments to be current. There was no record where the court says visitation was terminated, previously. The father appealed for a review of this ruling. He questions the order of the Trial Court where it made the payment of the child support the condition for visitation.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Child Support Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Two years after a couple got married, their first child was born. After about four years of being married, the couple got divorced. Custody was given to the wife, and the court gave the father reasonable visitation rights. The wife got married again shortly after the divorce. She moved to Phoenix, Arizona after and did not notify the father, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The father contacted missing children agencies in an effort to find the mother and the children, as he did not know where they went. The wife never tried to contact husband to get child support, even though she knew where was. After five years, she contacted father and told him where the children were. He resumed the child-support payments and visitation immediately. Two years after resuming contact, the wife filed a claim for child support in arrears.

In her claim, she reasoned that even if there was interference with the visitation, it is still the obligation of the non-custodial parent to pay child support. Child support and visitation are independent of each other. According to a Staten Island Visitation Lawyer, the Trial Court found the mother guilty of laches, which means she negligent in her making the claim. The court said she is not entitled to the child support in arrears. The mother appealed against this saying, she, being guilty of laches is not an appropriate reason not to grant her petition.

Published on: January 20, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother was awarded custody her son, when the couple divorced. The boy was only two years old at that time. Less than a year later, the mother died. The father immediately assumed custody of their son less than a month after her death. He filed a petition to change the decree to give him custody and this was granted about three months after, said a New York Family Lawyer. The order showed he had already remarried, and that he allows visitation for the maternal grandmother, with his child.

When the grandmother received the child for a visit, she asked a different court to award her temporary custody of the child. This was granted by the court and there was no order from the previous court to transfer jurisdiction to them. According to a New York City Custody Lawyer, a hearing took place to hear the father’s side. After the review and the testimony of the father, the custody was given to the father, and the court ordered that the child be delivered to him. Visitation was not included in the ruling.

The grandmother filed a motion to modify the divorce decree about a year later so she could have visitation rights. The court granted her those rights and said she can have the child for thirty hours a week in her home or anywhere else. If the parties are unable to agree on the schedule, it was set to be from noon on Saturdays until six in the evening on Sundays. A New York City Visitation Lawyer mentioned as well that the court instructed both parties not to take the child outside their jurisdiction without their approval. Another two years passed before the grandmother filed another motion with the court against the father for contempt. She claimed that the father denied her visitation for the second week of February that year. In her petition, she said he announced his intention to deny her visitation in the future.