Bronx

Published on: October 21, 2013

Petitioner Seeks to Modify Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

In May 2007, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that when he was unable — due to financial circumstances — to pick up his daughter at Respondent’s home after a visit with her pursuant to the 2005 Order, Respondent refused to return the Subject Child to New York. The Court refused to issue a writ and dismissed the petition noting that the 2005 Order requires Petitioner to pick up his daughter from Respondent’s home and that Respondent was not mandated to travel to New York to return the Subject Child to Petitioner. A New York Family Lawyer said the petitioner did not allege that he went to Respondent’s home to obtain the Subject Child.

A New York Family lawyer said that all parties and counsel were present at a court proceeding regarding Respondent’s filed petitions. At that time Respondent expressed her concern that Petitioner planned to relocate the Subject Child to Maine which would prevent her from having child visitation with the Subject Child as set by the 2005 Order. Accordingly, the Court issued an interim order directing that the Subject Child’s residence remain in New York State to allow for the child visitation between Respondent and the Subject Child as provided in the 2005 Order to continue to be effectuated.

Thereafter, a New York Custody Lawyer said the Petitioner dams filed two petitions before this Court seeking (1) modification of the 2005 Order to allow him to relocate with the Subject Child to Maine, and (2) alleging that Respondent violated the 2005 Order with respect to child visitation.

Published on: October 15, 2013

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In this motion for leave to reargue respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and for leave to reargue the decision and order of this Court dated August 8, 1977. A New York Family Lawyer said that, respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this proceeding brought by petitioner, a resident of Queens County, for upward modification of divorce decree, Kings County, dated January 31, 1974. A Queens Divorce Lawyer said that, respondent argues that since he is a resident of Putnam County, a county which does not adjoin the City of New York, this Court lacks jurisdiction (and by inference that petitioner could proceed only by a petition brought in Putnam County, or by a proceeding under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law, U.S.D.L.).

A Queens Order of Protection Lawyer said that, in October, 1974, an order was made in the Family Court, Kings County, where petitioner then resided (respondent then resided in New York County), on petitioner’s petition for enforcement of said decree. On March 18, 1977, respondent, then a resident of Putnam County, filed a petition in the Family Court, Queens County (where petitioner then resided and now resides) requesting expanded visitation with the child. A Queens Family Lawyer said that, on March 29, petitioner filed a petition in this Court requesting upward modification of support for the child. Both petitions were returnable in Kings County. When the Court was informed that neither party resided in Kings, the file was transferred to Queens County.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, now respondent argues lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner’s petition, in spite of the fact that he desires a hearing in this County on his petition. In addition to the reasons set forth below it is obvious that to require two hearings, in two counties would create a needless multiplicity of suits.

Published on: October 14, 2013

Court Rules on Wilfull Violation of Court Order

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1996, a paternity and child support proceedings were initiated against a man regarding a child, born out of wedlock. A New York Family Lawyer said the matter was scheduled but on the day the man failed to appear. After an inquest, the court entered an order declaring the man to be the father of the child and immediately referred the issue of support to a hearing examiner.

In 1997, the hearing examiner issued an order requiring the man to make weekly payments for the benefit of the child and pay the counsel fee within sixty days from the date ordered. A New York Custody Lawyer said the directive was duly served on the man by mail. In 1998, the man failed to make any payments in any way for the benefit of the child.

The county’s department of social services commenced an action against the man in the family court based on his willful failure to comply with the order.

Published on: October 12, 2013

Court Discusses Uniform Criminal Extradition Act

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1962, the accused left his wife and four minor children in California. His wife then entered into ‘a common law situation’ with a partner and adopted the name of her partner. A New York Family Lawyer said thereafter, she applied in California for public assistance for the children claiming that she did not receive any support from the accused. In 1971 she signed a misdemeanor complaint charging him with nonsupport. It was later determined that appellant was residing in New York and later, a reciprocal support petition was forwarded to the Family Court in New York. Thereafter, the court ordered that appellant to pay $16 a week for child support.

A Suffolk County Child Support lawyer said that the mother signed a felony complaint in California charging that appellant did ‘willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and without lawful excuse, omit to furnish’ support for his min children in violation of section 270 of the Penal Code of California. The complaint was sworn to before a Judge of the Municipal Court who then issued a warrant for appellant’s arrest. He was arrested at his home in New York and held pending extradition proceedings.

A Brooklyn Family Lawyer said thereafter, an investigator from the District Attorney’s office in Orange County, California, sent an application for requisition to the Governor of California. The application states that appellant is properly charged, in due form, in accordance with the laws of this State with the crime of violation of section 270 of the California Penal Code, a felony, committed in the county of Orange’ and ‘That said fugitive from while out of the State of California, committed acts intentionally resulting in said crime in said county. In an affidavit attached to the application, the mother recited the history of the case as indicated above and also stated that she had not received any support from the accused since the entry of the New York Family Court order. In another affidavit to the same effect Woodington noted that ‘this office has received no funds from the defendant’. Both of these affidavits were sworn to before a Judge of the Municipal Court of Orange County.

Published on: October 4, 2013

Father Disregards Child Support Order

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1996, a paternity and child support proceedings were initiated against a man regarding a child, born out of wedlock. A New York Family Lawyer said the matter was scheduled but on the day the man failed to appear. After an inquest, the court entered an order declaring the man to be the father of the child and immediately referred the issue of support to a hearing examiner.

In 1997, the hearing examiner issued an order requiring the man to make weekly payments for the benefit of the child and pay the counsel fee within sixty days from the date ordered. A New York Custody Lawyer said the directive was duly served on the man by mail. In 1998, the man failed to make any payments in any way for the benefit of the child.

The county’s department of social services commenced an action against the man in the family court based on his willful failure to comply with the order.

Published on: September 26, 2013

Court Modifies Child Support Payments in Light of Disability Proceeds

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner wife obtained a judgment of divorce against the appellant husband. At that time, appellant earned a net salary of approximately $200 per week as a postal worker. The opinion of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in the divorce action recited that petitioner, who was then receiving welfare, could reasonably be expected to earn $25 per week. A New York Family Lawyer said the judgment of divorce directed the appellant to make child support payments of $50 per week for each of the two children of the parties and awarded alimony of $50 per week, for a total of $150 per week.

The Family Court, Suffolk County, on the petition of the Child support Enforcement Bureau of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services (CSEB), (1) granted an order of support consistent with the terms of the judgment of divorce setting support at $150 per week, allocating $50 per week as alimony for petitioner and $50 per week for each of the two children as support and (2) granted a wage deduction order against appellant’s salary from the Post Office.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that appellant suffered a severe back injury which resulted in a continuing inability to work. He received his regular salary until April 1980, at which time he became the recipient of disability payments.

Published on: September 4, 2013

Mother Applies for Social Services for Unborn Child

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner applied for public assistance and medicaid from the Nassau County Department of Social Services for herself and her unborn child. At the time of the application, she was 20 years old and living separate and apart from her husband and residing in the home of her parents. Without any factual determination concerning the amount of support actually furnished by her parents, the Nassau County Department of Social Services, by letter, notified petitioner that her application for eligibility for public assistance was being denied.

A New York Family Lawyer said following a fair hearing proceeding the hearing officer rendered a decision affirming the denial of assistance by the Nassau County Department of Social Services on the grounds that: When a pregnant woman applies for public assistance for her unborn child and her needs are being met, the unborn child has no unmet needs.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding wherein she seeks to annul the determination after the fair hearing challenging the alleged practice and policy of respondents of 1) denying public assistance to married minors on the grounds that they are the legal responsibility of their parents; (2) denying eligibility of married minors for public assistance by assuming resources of legally non-responsible relatives is available for their support without a finding that such resources are in fact being expended for the minor’s support; and 3) denying eligibility of the unborn child for public assistance on the grounds that the pregnant mother’s needs are being met and the unborn child is precluded from establishing independent needs.

Published on: September 1, 2013

Court Appoints Legal Guardian for Institutionalized Child

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue presented is whether the trial court properly relieved the complainant’s natural guardian and replaced her with an attorney.

A New York Family Lawyer said a two weeks-years-old infant was diagnosed with infantile impetigo. His pediatrician prescribed an antibacterial skin cleanser, to be rubbed into the blisters on the skin with each diaper change and then rinsed off. The infant’s mother claims that within 48 hours after she started applying the antibacterial skin cleanser, the baby became very irritable, with greenish stools and flaking skin. The mother used the entire 16-ounce bottle within nine days and thereafter renewed her prescription.

Subsequently, the infant’s pediatrician diagnosed the infant’s condition with diaper rash, but the mother claims that the pediatrician urged her to continue the use of the antibacterial skin cleanser. The infant allegedly continued to be irritable and have loose, foul-smelling, green-colored stool. Further, unusual body movements, such as twitching, stiffening, and staring were observed, and the baby was diagnosed with seizures.

Published on: August 1, 2013

Court Decides Out of State Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said on 5 October 1982, the parties were separated in a matrimonial action by a judgment of separation of the Supreme Court of Queens County. Thereafter, an amended judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of Queens County, under a different judge, dated 17 November 1987, which, upon a de novo hearing on the issue of custody directed by order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dated 18 December 1986, inter alia, directed that the defendant mother return her daughter to the State of New York where the child shall reside with the plaintiff father and awarded custody of the child to the plaintiff father with liberal visitation by the defendant mother in Denver, Colorado, or in New York, with leave to the defendant mother to move for modification of the amended judgment so as to give her custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the plaintiff father, upon submission of appropriate proof that the defendant mother has returned to the State of New York.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the defendant mother appeals from the amended judgment. The appellate court ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, on the law and on the facts, with costs, and custody of the child is awarded to the defendant mother with liberal visitation to the plaintiff father during the Christmas and Easter school recesses and one-half the summer vacation period, with the cost of the child’s airfare between New York and Colorado to be shared equally by the parties.

The events that took place are as follows:

Published on: July 28, 2013

Court Looks at Cell Phone Ban in Public Schools

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, this proceeding was commenced pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules by notice of petition dated July 13, 2006 to “strike down” those portions of the Citywide Standards of Discipline and Intervention Measures (the Standards) promulgated by the Chancellor of the New York City School District which forbid students from bringing cellular telephones (cell phones) into public schools in the New York City School District (the Cell Phone Rules) without authorization.

A New York Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the petitioners are eight parents who have children presently enrolled in public schools in the city and the Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Council. Respondents are the New York City Board of Education, doing business as New York City Department of Education, Chancellor of the New York City School District, and the Mayor of the City New York. The challenged Cell Phone Rules are a single item in the 26-page Standards adopted by the respondents to carry out its obligation to adopt a code of behavior under Education Law § 2801. The Cell Phone Rules, denoted as prohibition level 1, A04 for kindergarten through grade 5, and B05 for grades 6 through 12 under the list of infractions (collectively, the Cell Phone Rules), proscribe “bringing prohibited equipment or material to school without authorization (e.g., cell phone, beeper, or other electronic communication/entertainment devices).”

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the Standards are structured to set forth five escalating levels of disruptive behavior. The lowest level, level 1, is insubordinate behavior, level 2 is disorderly disruptive behavior, level 3 is seriously disruptive or dangerous behavior, level 4 is dangerous or violent behavior, level 5 is severely dangerous or violent behavior. Standards level 1 lists 10 proscribed behaviors for kindergarten through grade 5 and 12 for grades 6 through 12, which include the Cell Phone Rules. For each level of infraction the code provides for level appropriate “possible disciplinary responses.” The Standards also include a five-page “Bill of Student Rights and Responsibilities, K-12.”