Nassau County

Published on: August 29, 2012

Court Hears Case Regarding Child Neglect

by Stephen Bilkis

In a contested child protective and child custody proceeding, the administration for children’s services sought an order directing the removal of the child from the home of the paternal grandmother who resides in Virginia. The motion is supported by the law guardian and opposed by the parents of the child.

The administration for children’s services filed a neglect petitions against the parents of the child alleging that they neglected the child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment causing numerous marks and bruises on the child’s body. A New York Family Lawyer said the petitions allege that the child was beaten by the mother with an extension cord and punched by both parents. In addition, the petitions allege that the father is a person legally responsible for the child because of the fact that he is married to the child’s mother. Lastly, the petitions allege that the other two children of the parents are derivatively neglected children.

On the day the petitions were filed, a hearing was conducted and granted the application for the remand, directing that the child will be placed with the maternal great-grandfather and that the two younger children be placed together with kinship resources. During the months that followed the initial removal, the two younger children were moved several times and are currently in their second non-kinship foster home.

Published on: August 28, 2012

Non-biological Father Seeks Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the biological mother of the subject child, a six-year-old boy conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003. Respondent and petitioner met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in November 2003, the month before the child’s birth. Respondent repeatedly refused petitioner’s requests to become the child’s second parent by means of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said after the relationship between the petitioner and respondent soured and they separated, respondent allowed petitioner to have supervised visits with the child each week on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. In the spring of 2008, however, respondent began scaling back the visits. By early May 2008, she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the child.

Petitioner brought the proceeding against the respondent in Supreme Court by order to show cause. She sought joint legal and physical custody of the child, restoration of access and decision making authority with respect to his upbringing, and appointment of an attorney for the child.

At the hearing, the petitioner acknowledged the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Matter of Alison D., which held that only a child’s biological or adoptive parent has standing to seek visitation against the wishes of a fit custodial parent, but contended that another landmark case, which endorsed a nonbiological or nonadoptive parent’s right to invoke equitable estoppel to secure visitation or custody notwithstanding Alison D.

Published on: August 27, 2012

Mother Seeks Modification of Visitation Arrangement

by Stephen Bilkis

On a motion for a change of child custody by a father whose former wife has breached the restrictive residence provision of a non-merged separation agreement by surreptitiously removing the children of the marriage to California, two equally strong policies are contra posed to each other. A New York Family Lawyer said the policy of courts to jealously protect the visitation rights of a non-custodial parent, and on the other, the policy of deferring jurisdiction of custody disputes to that jurisdiction best able to hear all relevant evidence concerning the children’s past, present and future circumstances.

The court determines that it is in the children’s best interests that the matter be heard in California, where nearly all the relevant evidence can be found. The case involves neither child snatching nor forum shopping. Moreover, the papers before the court strongly suggest that the father is not, at present, a fit custodian of the children whereas the mother has made a strong showing that the children’s welfare has substantially improved in California. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that since the court is confident that the California courts will be sensitive to the father’s visitation rights, the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction on the condition that appropriate proceedings should be promptly commenced in the California courts.

In a separation agreement dated June 22, 1982, the complainant mother and the father agreed that the mother would have the child custody and the father would have reasonable rights of visitation upon 48 hours notice. It was further agreed that the mother would not remove with the children more than 200 miles from New York without the father’s consent.

Published on: August 26, 2012

Mother Seeks to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal involves a custodial action with the request of the mother to relocate her child with her. The parties were married but separated about a year and a half. Consequently, they filed a divorce and it was granted. The provision settling the case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. Moreover, the father had a visitation rights every week from Monday at 8:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. The provision allowed relocation within 25-miles from the father’s house in Bronx.

Based on records, the father had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. At the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.

After the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. Consequently, a New York Family Lawyer said she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. She moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. She stated that she was trying to mirror her own childhood and further stated that she had a wonderful suburban upbringing. The mother’s relationship in Connecticut ended when her boyfriend returned to his country. The mother returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.

Published on: August 25, 2012

Wife Contends Court Erred in Distributing Marital Assets

by Stephen Bilkis

The court is called upon to make certain decisions based upon a dispute involving allegations that a mother, through her actions, actively and passively alienated and influenced a child to the point that the child may no longer have any inclination or desire to see her father again. A New York Family Lawyer said as equally important, the court must also determine the credibility of claims of egregious domestic violence during a long-term marriage of 31 years alleged to have been perpetrated against the mother, herself an advocate for the rights of women in divorce actions.

One of the most difficult decisions a Judge has to make is that which impacts upon the life of a child. The law has long recognized the special place and role of the court in deciding issues relating to children and the long term impact that our courts have on the life of a child.

The parties were married in August 1973. The wife is 52 years of age and the husband is 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, the husband was 22 years of age and a college graduate while the wife was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, the eldest daughter, age 32; the eldest son, age 26; the youngest son, age 20; and the youngest daughter, age 13. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the two youngest children, the youngest son (presently age 20) and the youngest daughter (presently age 13), remain un-emancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at a university. It appears the youngest son is fully and voluntarily supported by the father and does not permanently reside with either party, although he does reside with the mother during the summer recess from school.

Published on: August 24, 2012

Court Hears Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

An Italian-born American woman married another American in the United States in August 1992. They went to Italy where their only son was born in July 2001. The child has Italian and American citizenship.

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple divorced in April 2004 in New York but the divorce decree did not rule on the custody or visitation issue because New York was not the home state of their son as he has lived only nine months in New York prior to his parents’ divorce.

The mother returned to Italy with her son to apply with the Italian courts for a determination of the custody and visitation issue. The Italian court awarded the mother sole custody of their son and gave visitation rights to the father. The Italian court went further and allowed the mother to decide whether she wants to reside in Italy or the United States as long as the father is not deprived of his right to visitation.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Father Brings an Order to Show Cause Regarding Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff father and defendant mother were married in West Point, NewYork. Five years later, they had a daughter. Six months after the child’s birth, the parties separated. The father commenced an action for divorce in NewYork County, where he had moved after the separation.

The NewYork Supreme Court granted a judgment of divorce, incorporating by reference a comprehensive settlement agreement, the terms of which had been negotiated by mother and father in open court, and which survived the judgment. When the judgment was granted, mother and child were living in Las Vegas, Nevada, where they had moved. A New York Family Lawyer said under the settlement agreement, mother had sole legal custody of the child. Father had visitation rights in accordance with a detailed schedule. The settlement agreement provided that “it is expressly understood and agreed that so long as one of the parties herein is a resident of the State of NewYork, the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork shall retain personal jurisdiction of the parties, of the child, and of the case, for all purposes.”

Subsequently, the mother and child moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Later that year, in November, father moved for sole the child’s custody in NewYork, claiming that the mother’s relocations were intended to deprive him from having contact with his daughter. Mother responded by denying father’s allegations, and stating in effect that if the court intended to deny the motion, it should exercise jurisdiction, but if the court was inclined to grant the motion, she should be given an opportunity to file a cross motion seeking to dismiss the action because NewYork was an inconvenient forum.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Parent Looks to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A lady psychiatrist married and then later divorced her husband. Custody of their son was awarded to the lady psychiatrist and liberal visitation rights were granted to the ex-husband.

The lady psychiatrist re-married a civil engineer with whom she had two children aged four and two. A New York Family Lawyer said the lady psychiatrist shelved her career and decided to be a stay-at-home mom and raise her three children. When their son was six years old, the lady psychiatrist encouraged her civil engineer husband to find employment in Dharan, Saudi Arabia where the pay and the benefits were greater than his current employment in New York.

The ex-husband then went to the Family Court of New York to ask the court to stop the lady psychiatrist from re-locating with their son to Dharan, Saudi Arabia. He also prayed that if the lady psychiatrist insists on re-locating her whole family, then custody over their son be awarded instead to him.

Published on: August 22, 2012

Court Decides Jursidiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Petitioner mother and respondent father were married in Colorado in 1979. They had a child born in Wyoming. Thereafter the mother filed for divorce in Wyoming. A New York Family Lawyer said at about that time, the mother moved with the child to New York, where they have resided since. During the divorce action, the parties entered into an agreement resolving the issues of child custody, visitation, and support.

The mother was granted custody of the child in New York and the father was awarded liberal visitation, including extended summer visitation with the child in Wyoming. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that settlement agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree rendered by the Wyoming District Court. In 1991, the father brought an application in Wyoming to enforce his visitation rights and prevent the mother from interfering with visitation. The parties reached a stipulation. The Wyoming District Court issued an amended divorce decree incorporating the terms of that stipulation.

The mother petitioned Chautauqua County Family Court for an order modifying visitation.

Published on: August 20, 2012

Wife Moves Florida has Emergency Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple commenced an action for divorce and for child custody of their minor child. At the time of the action was initiated, the couple were living apart for several months. The wife instituted the action in Florida. She filed and received an ex-parte injunction enjoining either party from removing the child from the state of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. A New York Family Lawyer said the wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Florida. Her petition in Florida has been revised to include the claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Afterwards, the court conducted a joint hearing to New York state domestic relations law. The wife was present at the courthouse in Florida with her counsel and the husband simultaneously appeared in Kings County where both parties were also represented by New York counsel. At the hearing both counsel conceded that New York was the home state of the infant based upon the fact that the child has not resided in Florida for six (6) months prior to the commencement of the action. The husband has persistently argued that the issues of custody and visitation should be argued at New York Court. Conversely, the wife maintained that New York is an inconvenient forum.

The wife predicates her claim of inconvenient forum from the issue that her husband had a history of domestic violence, he has exercised power over her and that the husband has refused to provide adequate support for the wife and the child, that there was an agreement for the wife to live with her parents in Florida and a concession that the issue of the child would be heard in Florida and same was confirmed in an e-mail from the husband.