Articles Posted in Bronx

The Court adjudicated the child as neglected child in a 59-page written decision outlining the history of the neglect case as well as the dispositional orders issued by the Court on the same date. A New York Family Lawyer said at that point, the child had been in care. The judge’s dispositional order was quite clear. It required that the children be placed in care for 12 months and the defendant mother be placed under the Administration for Child Services (ACS) supervision for 12 months.

The order of the court also issued an order of protection against the respondent mother in favor of the children providing that she shall not interfere with their care and custody by ACS or its agent and shall have only supervised visitation with the children at the agency and that she was required to comply with the terms and conditions specified in said order of protection which was incorporated into the dispositional order. Furthermore, the dispositional order required that the respondent mother was to establish and maintain a verifiable place of residence and keep ACS/Agency appraised of her residence at all times, as well as a means of reliable communication such as mailing address and telephone number. A New York Custody Lawyer said she was also to establish a verifiable source of income. The mother was to be notified of the planning conferences to be held with respect to the children. She has the right to attend such conferences and the right of respondent to be accompanied by counsel or other person. It also required that the children were to continue to receive therapy and that ACS was to undertake diligent efforts to encourage and work with the respondent in an effort to effectuate the discharge of the children to her care and respondent was to cooperate, as well, in that regard. It also continued the warrant for the return of the son to foster care.

The dispositional order also wants the ACS to submit written progress reports to the Court, to the respondent mother and the Law Guardian concerning the status of the respondent mother and the children and the implementation of the Court’s order. It also required ACS was to file a petition for a permanency hearing.

Continue reading

An institution filed a child neglect petition in the family court based on allegations that the mother failed to provide adequate medical care for the infant and had a prior history of neglect findings as to the infant’s older siblings. The court issued an order removing the child from the mother’s care and sends back the child to the institution for foster care services. Then, the institution removed the child from the mother’s care and the child physically entered the foster care. A New York Family Lawyer said the institution placed the child in a foster home with the agency with whom they contracts for foster care and adoption services. The agency consequently placed the child in the home of non-kinship foster parent who has now filed the agency for adoption petition. The child remained in the foster mother’s home continuously.

Consequently, the court found that the mother had neglected the child and issued a dispositional order placing the child with the institution. At the hearing, the court approved a change in the child’s permanency goal from return to parent to adoption. The agency filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother on the grounds of permanent neglect or abandonment, and sought a finding that there was no man who was entitled to notice of and consent to the adoption of the child.

The hearing for the termination of parental rights proceeding was initiated. At the hearing, the court learned that the mother had died and her death ended the proceeding. A New York Custody Lawyer said the court then held a hearing and found that there was no man who was entitled to notice of or consent to the child’s adoption. The court directed the agency to submit a written order of disposition and the mother’s death certificate.

Continue reading

A pregnant woman, who was then 20 years of age, unmarried and at her sixth month of pregnancy, sought her obstetrician’s assistance in placing her forthcoming child for adoption. The doctor, the woman’s obstetrician then contacted an interested young childless couple. A New York Family Lawyer said as a result, preliminary arrangements for the adoption commenced. The woman, who was then residing with her parents and attending college in New York City, planned to leave the city, give birth, turn the child over to the adoptive parents and then return home to her parents, who were unaware of her pregnancy.

On 9 December 1981, the woman gave birth to a son. On 11 December 1981, the woman retained a lawyer. On 20 January 1982, she then signed an extra-judicial consent form for her son’s adoption in order to permit the adoptive parents to take possession of the child. The consent form states on its face that it shall become irrevocable 30 days after commencement of the child adoption proceeding unless revoked within that time, pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law.

A New York Custody Lawyer said on 24 March 1982, the child adoption proceeding was instituted in the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County. However, six days later, the woman or the natural mother filed a notice of revocation of consent which the adoptive parents immediately resisted. The Acting Surrogate conducted a hearing to determine whether the revocation was in the child’s best interest. In her memorandum to the trial court, the natural mother urged that section 115-b of the Domestic Relations Law be declared unconstitutional because the language it requires to be inserted in the consent form, if the right to revoke is to be limited, proffers the impression that timely revocation will nullify the consent absolutely, while all it actually directs is a hearing concerning the best interests of the child, at which the natural parent derives no advantage from parenthood. During the hearing, the parties focused on best interests, an issue which consumed nearly all of the almost 500 pages of transcript. Although the constitutional question was raised, the transcript contained no claim by the natural mother that she was misled by the consent form. Thus, the court denied the natural mother’s application to withdraw her consent, finding that revocation would not serve the best interests of the child. While the Acting Surrogate recognized that a lay person could easily infer from the language of the form that the consent could be revoked and upon adoption revocation the parties would be restored to a status quo position, it found that the natural mother had not been misled by the form, that she had understood the consequences of her act and that she had been represented by competent counsel, and therefore had not been deprived of due process.

This original application for a writ of prohibition arises out of the new law (L.1978, c. 481), imposing criminal responsibility on juvenile offenders for certain crimes. Sodomy in the first degree is one such crime (PL § 30.00(2)). A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, petitioner, a 15 year old juvenile offender (PL § 10.00(18)), stands indicted on four counts of sodomy in the first degree. He was arrested on October 4, 1978, and was arraigned in the Bronx Criminal Court the following day. By reason of the intervening weekend and the Jewish holy days which followed thereafter, the case was adjourned to October 11, 1978. A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, on that day, petitioner made request for a preliminary hearing and for a hearing seeking removal of the charges to the Family Court. In response to the application, the prosecutor informed the court that a true bill had been voted by the Grand Jury on October 10, 1978, although, as a result of time pressures, the indictment had not yet been handed down. The judge presiding denied the application on the ground that he had been divested of jurisdiction by the action of the Grand Jury. He adjourned the proceeding until October 13, 1978 in order to afford the District Attorney’s office time to file the indictment. In fact, the indictment was filed the next day, and on October 13, 1978, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, petitioner moved before the Justice for multiple relief, including a dismissal of the indictment under CPL § 210.20(h) upon the ground that “there exists some other jurisdictional or legal impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged”. The specific basis urged was that petitioner had been deprived of the right to a removal hearing. A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the Justice denied the application upon the ground that the “Grand Jury acted within its own authority which cannot be diminished by any previous court hearing or lack of such hearing”. A motion for leave to reargue was denied. Thereupon, this proceeding was brought.

The issue in this case is whether the indictment of petitioner should be dismissed on the ground that there exists some other jurisdictional or legal impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged.

Continue reading

A New York Family Lawyer said that, the family of the now-15 year old child has been involved with the child welfare system since 1998, when child abuse proceedings were brought against her parents. As best can be told, her father was never involved in her life thereafter. Her mother died in 2001. After living with different relatives for a time until 2003, the child has been in numerous non-kinship foster homes. Since 2005, the child has been placed in homes with the Home foster care agency. In May 2007, the child found a measure of stability by living in the foster boarding home where she remains until this day. During these past four years, the “permanency goal” of the child has been adoption by, and numerous permanency hearings and other oversight has been conducted by the Courts, both before me, and various Referees, during which the St. Dominic’s Home participated.

A New York Custody Lawyer it was not until April 2011 that an adoption petition, including a “Statement of Readiness” by the attorney, was filed on behalf of Ms. C.-S, and eventually calendared before me, with a proposed finalization date of June 2, 2011. Because various paperwork was missing, and more important, because the record revealed that there were two outstanding Orders of Guardianship for different relatives, which needed to be addressed before the adoption could be finalized, the adoption could not go forward and was adjourned several times. Throughout this period, my court attorney was in constant contact with the adoptive mother’s attorney, offering guidance on the situation and assuring that I would promptly proceed with the adoption and also expeditiously hear and address any ancillary proceedings which might need to be filed. No steps were taken to address the guardianship issues.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, instead, on September 1, 2011, the foster care agency filed a motion, returnable October 12, 2011, claiming that the agency’s interest was expediting permanency for the child, and complaining that this Court was unnecessarily delaying such “permanency”. The agency seeks intervenor status, and an order granting the adoption petition notwithstanding the previous guardianship orders.

Continue reading

In this criminal case, one of the allegations in the neglect proceeding involves defendant’s purported violation of an interim order of protection issued by a Family Court judge. In its earlier decision dated June 15, 2012, this Court ruled, inter alia, that the claim of double jeopardy had not ripened because the Family Court hearing was, and in fact still is, ongoing, and no punitive sanction has been imposed. A New York Family Lawyer said that, the Court denies the motion to renew, but grants the motion for re-argument. Upon re-argument, based on the specific facts of this case and analysis of federal constitutional principles, the Court reverses its original ruling to the extent of finding this prosecution is barred from proceeding as a matter of federal constitutional law.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, in the criminal matter, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. Defendant was subsequently convicted in the criminal action on each of the five counts of criminal contempt and aggravated harassment, following a jury trial. A New York Custody Lawyer said the Court of Appeals found that “because the same acts violated both orders, it would be impossible for defendant to be guilty of first degree criminal contempt for violating the City Court order of protection without concomitantly being guilty of violating the Family Court order of protection.” Thus, the Court held that the criminal contempt prosecution was barred because of the previous conviction “under Family Court Act article 8.”

A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, on October 7, 2010, an interim order of protection was issued under Section 1029 of the Family Court Act in connection with a civil child neglect proceeding brought under Article 10 of that act. Five additional interim orders of protection were issued between that date and August 17, 2011. A subsequent neglect petition, a civil case also brought under Article 10, alleges, inter alia, defendant violated those interim orders of protection based on conduct which is said to have occurred on January 4, 2011. The criminal case contains a single count alleging a violation of an order of protection issued in Supreme Court, Bronx County on May 26, 2011. Thus, one of the allegations in the civil pleading involves conduct which allegedly took place five months prior to the issuance of the order of protection defendant is accused of violating in this matter.

In this Family case, the subject children are the parties’ twin sons, born in the Dominican Republic. The father obtained a default order of custody there in 2002, an order appealed by the mother and affirmed by the Dominican court, a month after she had brought the boys to the United States. In quick succession, the Integrated Domestic Violence Court—which has jurisdiction over both criminal and Family law matters—received a criminal prosecution against the father based on his alleged threats to kill the mother; a writ of habeas corpus filed by the father under article 6 of the Family Court Act seeking enforcement of the Dominican custody order; a petition for custody of the two boys filed by the mother under article 6 of the Family Court Act; and a Family offense petition filed the same day by the mother under article 8 of the Family Court Act, alleging additional acts of domestic violence.

A Bronx County Family Attorney said that a law guardian assigned to represent the children reported an extensive history of domestic violence. Based upon this information, the court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76-c, and directed the Administration for Children’s Services to interview both parents and the children.

A New York Family Lawyer said the review of the documents of the Dominican proceedings confirms that the mother and father separated in 1998. At that time, pursuant to an agreement signed before assistant to the prosecutor, the father consented to the terms of an order of protection, agreeing to refrain from assaulting the mother verbally or physically, and to vacate the Family home until the mother was able to find other housing. He agreed to pay child support, and was given regular visitations as long as he behaves appropriately. The mother left the Dominican Republic in 1999, leaving the children with her mother, remarrying in 2000. Five weeks later, while the mother was still in the United States, the father filed a claim for custody of the two children in the Court of the First Instance for Children and Adolescents of the Distrito Nacional. The maternal grandmother, who had physical custody of the children at the time, was named as defendant in the matter.

In this case, the parties were divorced by judgment dated February 13, 2003. The Appellant father appealed from the order of the Supreme Court, Queens County dated August 28, 2009, which granted the Respondent mother’s motion for permission to relocate to North Carolina with the parties’ child.

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties in this case separated shortly after their daughter was born in 2000. They divorced in 2003, after a 2 1/2-year marriage. While the Respondent mother had child custody pursuant to a stipulation of settlement in the divorce proceeding, the child spent the first three weekends of each month with the Appellant father and his family, in addition to holidays and summer vacation.

The Respondent mother moved in the Supreme Court for permission to relocate to North Carolina with the child. At an expedited hearing, Respondent mother asserted that she desired a new beginning for herself and the child and that they would enjoy a higher standard of living and an improved quality of life. A New York Custody Lawyer said while Respondent mother initially proposed continuing the Appellant father’s existing visitation and bearing the expense of flying the child to New York three times per month, she subsequently suggested reducing the Appellant father’s visitation to one visit per month, with extended summer vacation.

Continue reading

This is a matrimonial action taking place in the Appellate division of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The respondent in the case is Wilma Shaw and the appellant in the case is Peter Shaw. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a previous order made in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that denied his motion to set aside the judgment for divorce that was entered on the 21st of July, 1980 and a stipulation settlement from February of 1981 that divided certain property of the marriage that had been owned jointly.

Case Background

The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married in 1966 in England. The couple has three children together who are fourteen, eight, and four years old. In 1980, the plaintiff commenced a divorce action against the husband alleging that the defendant had engaged in cruel and inhuman conduct toward her. The defendant failed to answer and a judgment of divorce was awarded to the plaintiff and entered on the 21st of July, 1980.

Continue reading

This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Juraj Skvara is seeking a summary judgment for his malpractice cause of action claim against his former attorney, the defendant Philip Kamaras. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking a money judgment in the amount of $1,000,000. The defendant has issued a cross motion for an order dismissing the complaint made against him. This is based on the grounds that the plaintiff’s action was not properly commenced and fails to state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice.

Case Background

The plaintiff, Skvara, retained the defendant Kamaras on the 23rd of February, 2006 to handle a matrimonial and family court proceeding against his ex – wife, Andrea Skvara after the divorce judgment was vacated in a New York divorce court. The defendant provided the plaintiff with a written retainer agreement and a client’s bill of rights before taking on the case.

Continue reading