Queens

Published on: November 19, 2012

Court Decides Womens Earnings Not Relevant to Man’s Obligation for Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple in this proceeding was duly married and became the parents of two children. They lived as a family in New York City continuously until September of 1948. In 1950, the man went to Nevada and marries another woman, following a typical Nevada divorce mill constructive service default order. A New York Family Lawyer said he remained in Nevada only about two months after obtaining such order. He left Nevada to transact business in New Jersey.

The woman then filed an action against the man asking for child support according to his means and station in life. Because their children are residing in New York City and the man is again living in New York City, the court has the mandatory jurisdiction to enter an order for their support.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the woman as first wife also questions the legality of the husband’s remarriage and asserts that his second wife is as a matter of law his paramour and, as such, without any legal right to support.

Published on: November 15, 2012

Court Decides Whether to Consolidate Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, a New York Family Lawyer said the Plaintiff husband moved to consolidate a Family Court proceeding, wherein he and his mother were charged with abuse and neglect of the parties youngest daughter, into this divorce case which is already at the postjudgment stage. Defendant wife and the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) opposed the said motion.

The parties were married on November 7, 1984. They had two children, one born in 1988, and the other born in 1994. The Plaintiff husband commenced this action for divorce in February 2002. On May 22, 2002, the parties entered into a stipulation which resolved all issues of child custody, visitation and child support. They agreed that they would have joint legal custody of the children, and that the father would have sole physical custody. A New York Custody Lawyer said they further agreed that defendant wife was to have the children visit her in Florida for six weeks each summer and for two weeks during school vacations. She was also to have overnight visits when she was in New York.

The court entered an order, dated July 13, 2004, continuing the award of sole physical custody to the Plaintiff husband. The court retained jurisdiction over the youngest daughter’s custody.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Court Decides Grandparent Custody Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a grandmother filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to compel the adoptive parents of her infant grandchild to bring the child to court. A writ of habeas corpus is an order which may be issued by a court to compel any person having physical custody over a person to bring that person to court.

The grandmother alleges that her grandchild was born sometime in 1957 and was in her care until 1962. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the father of her grandson was imprisoned and the grandchild’s mother, the daughter of the petitioner died in 1960 as a result of health complications arising from her drug addiction.

A year later, in 1962, the grandmother found herself in court locked in a custody battle over her grandchild against the paternal grandmother of her grandchild. After proceedings in the family court, the custody of the child was awarded to the paternal aunt of the grandchild (the sister of the child’s father). The paternal aunt has had custody over the grandchild from 1963 until this petition for habeas corpus was filed in 1967. Under the custody order, the maternal grandmother (the petitioner in this case) was awarded visitation rights.

Published on: November 10, 2012

Court Determines if Respondent has Personal Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 6, 2010, Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) commenced the instant Family Court Act Article 10 abuse matter. A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the Petition alleges the following: A personnel from the Police Department called in a report on November 24, 2010, alleging that the respondent father has been having sexual intercourse with the subject child now 13 years old, on a regular basis. A New York Family Lawyer said the report further alleges that the most recent incident occurred during September of 2010. Further, the subject child’s mother learned of the sex abuse on November 24, 2010, when she found a nude photograph that the subject child had sent to the respondent father via cellular phone.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the subject child stated to an ACS caseworker that the respondent father began having sexual intercourse with her when she was eleven years old. She further stated that the respondent father has had sexual intercourse with her on numerous occasions and he also has inserted his fingers into her vagina, performed oral sex on her and fondled her breasts. She also stated that the respondent father asked her to send him pictures of her vagina. Finally, the subject child also stated that the respondent father told her that their sexual relationship is their secret until the day they die.

When ACS first appeared on this matter, Petitioner indicated that Respondent Father lived in Georgia and was believed to have last been in New York in November 2010 during a Thanksgiving visit. ACS further noted that the mother and the children had relocated from Texas and had been living in New York since September 2010. The prior judge ordered personal service of the Summons and Petition on the Respondent Father, paroled the children to their mother under ACS supervision, and issued a Temporary Order of Protection against the Respondent Father on behalf of the Non-Respondent Mother and the Subject Children preventing the father from having any contact with the mother and children.

Published on: November 9, 2012

Defendant Moves to have Order for Protection Vacated

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Family Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The petitioner in this case is Lloyd Grant. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent of the case is Darlene Pugh. The respondent, Darlene Pugh has moved to have the final order of protection granted in favor of the petitioner of Lloyd Grant vacated. The respondent failed to appear on the 18th of August, 2008 when this order was made. She denies being served with any papers for the previous hearing.

Case Background

On the 15th of August, 2008, the petitioner, Lloyd Grant filed a family offense petition stating that on the 8th of August, 2008, when they were leaving the Bronx Family Court the respondent threatened him. The couple was appearing in a delinquency action that involved their son DG. At the time the threat was made, Ms. Pugh was escorted from the building, but she was not arrested. A New York Custody Lawyer said the couple was scheduled to reappear regarding the delinquency matter on the 18th of August, 2008. A temporary ex parte order of protection was issued to Mr. Grant returnable on the same date as the delinquency hearing was scheduled.

Published on: November 6, 2012

Court Considers Terminating Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court, New York County, dismissing a petition brought by petitioner Hospital seeking (1) termination of the parental rights of respondent mother; (2) custody of the subject child; and (3) a declaration that the child was free for adoption, pursuant to Social Services Law Section 384-b and Family Court Act, Article Six. A New York Family Lawyer said the out-of-wedlock infant was born on March 25, 1974. The current whereabouts of the father are unknown and there is no evidence of any contact or support by him at any time. The infant came into the custody of the hospital on April 21, 1976 after he was found strapped in his stroller, alone and unattended, at about 4 a. m., near an abandoned building in Brooklyn. The mother was apprehended and arrested for burglary of the building. She subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal trespass. A New York Custody Lawyer said he claimed that on her way to the store with the child she was pursued and had to leave the infant unattended. In consequence of this incident, a finding of neglect was made against the mother by the Family Court, Kings County.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that, the child was placed with the Commissioner of Social Services for an initial period of eight months. Thereafter placement was extended until March, 1979. The mother, herself, had been placed in foster care at the age of 3 because her own mother was unable to care for her and her five brothers and sisters, four of whom were placed in foster care. Her schooling ended at the 10th grade. She was transferred from one institution to another and from one foster family to another until the age of 18. The longest period with a foster parent was from 1972 to 1974. Although she knew her parents, she had no relationship with them. In a psychological evaluation in connection with the placement of the subject child, the mother was diagnosed as an inadequate personality with anxiety features needing psychiatric treatment and counseling. “Therapy should be directed in part to help her to accept responsibility for everything which may happen to her infant.”

During 1976 the mother visited with her son on 12 or 13 separate occasions out of a possible 60 available dates, as noted in the agency records. On September 17, 1976, at the extension of placement hearing, she indicated upset at the decision. She believed her son should have been released to her. She was directed to avail herself of counseling which the agency was directed to provide. In December 1976 she expressed upset that her son was in a foster home in Bronx. In view of the fact that she lived in Brooklyn and she was in an advanced state of pregnancy with a second child, it would be difficult for her to make the long trip to Bronx and visit her son. She could not visit him until after the baby was born. During the entire year 1977, the mother visited the subject child only once. In October 1977 she advised the agency that she wanted her son returned but she was too busy with her second baby. During 1977 she had financial problems, moved from place to place and had fires in at least two of her places of residence. On June 8, 1978 she stated that she could not plan for his son, that she no longer lived with his paramour and was now living with another man. She wished the agency to continue to care for her son and to help her with the many decisions she would have to make. Her new paramour had three children in foster care in Brooklyn. She admitted she could not care for the three children in addition to his son.

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 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.