Nassau County

Published on: April 18, 2012

Court Determines if they Have Proper Jurisdiction in Family Law Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother, respondent, and the father were married in 1980, which marriage was dissolved by a Florida Judgment of Divorce in 1986. At the time of the divorce, the mother was awarded primary custody of her three children. In 1988 an acquaintance of the mother entered her Florida home and abducted, raped and brutally attacked the two daughters, killing one of them and seriously injuring another. The father petitioned the Florida Court for a change of physical custody, which was granted in an Order and Judgment dated 7 June 1989. That order, inter alia, granted the mother liberal contact and access with the children including an extended summer and Christmas visitation. The father was also required to facilitate continued counseling for the children in Rochester which he failed to do. Counseling for one of the children was discontinued in 1992 and the other child in 1993 upon the father’s contention that it was no longer needed.

The children visited with the mother in Florida during summers of 1990, 1991, and 1993, and for the three Christmas holidays in those years, while residing the remainder of the year with the father in Monroe County, New York. Summer visitation did not occur during the summer of 1994, as the parties agreed to postpone visitation so one of the children could participate in a softball clinic. The mother drove to Monroe County to visit with the children during Christmas 1994, after the father refused to send them to Florida pursuant to their prior agreement. No visit occurred during the summer of 1995. Despite the attempts of the mother and her attorney to arrange a Christmas, 1995 visit, the father refused to allow the mother to speak with the children when she telephoned and refused to permit that visit to occur.

Subsequently, on 18 December 1995, the mother filed a Motion for Contempt against the father in the state of Florida. On 28 May 1996, the father was found in willful contempt of the Florida order. Counseling with the mother and the children was ordered by the Florida Court, as well as visitation during the summer of 1996.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Court Lacks Jurisiction to Modify Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 26 June 1983, the parties married in Rhode Island, later moved to that state, where a son was born on 13 August 1990. On 1 July 1994, the parties were divorced in Rhode Island after a contested trial in that state’s Family Court, which awarded the parties joint custody of the child with physical custody awarded to the mother, who was given responsibility for all decisions concerning the child’s education and religious upbringing. All other decisions concerning the child were to be jointly decided by the parties. The court awarded extensive visitation to the father, an attorney, who was directed to pay child support of $1,500 per month. In pertinent part, the judgment of divorce states: “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decisions concerning custody and visitation in accordance with the provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.”

From his birth until the fall of 1994, the child resided in Providence, Rhode Island. After the parties’ separation in 1992, the child had frequent and extensive contact with his father during the week and on alternate weekends. On 10 November 1994, after a hearing, the Rhode Island Family Court entered an order permitting the mother to relocate to New York on condition that the father have extensive visitation in Rhode Island, including, inter alia, three weekends every month. The order required the mother to deliver the child and pick him up from Providence on two weekends and New Haven, Connecticut on the other weekend and to bear the cost thereof. A New York Family Lawyer said the order further provided, “The State of Rhode Island shall retain jurisdiction and is declared to be the home state as to any decision concerning custody, visitation and child support, and shall be in accordance with provisions of the Rhode Island Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, as amended 15-14-1 through 26.” The parties substantially adhered to these provisions from November 1994 to the present.

On 12 September 2003, the mother commenced the instant proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County for an order “a) modifying the extraordinary visitation schedule entered almost nine years ago; and b) modifying and enforcing the child support provisions established pursuant to the parties’ divorce over nine years ago.”

Published on: April 16, 2012

queens family

by Stephen Bilkis

The applicant of the case is Theodore Payton versus New York, Obie Riddick, and Applicant versus New York.

Appeals

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeals for this case are arguing whether or not the statutes of New York State law in regard to entry of a person’s home without a warrant are constitutional.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Physician Accused of Performing Illegal Abortions

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant of the case is the United States of America. The appellee in the case is Milan Vuitch.

Appeal

Milan Vuitch, the appellee is a licensed physician and was indicted by the District Court in the District of Columbia for the United States District Court. Milan Vuitch was accused of attempting to produce and producing abortions that were in violation of the District of Columbia code Ann 22-201, from the year 1967. A New York Family Lawyer said before the case went to trial the district judge of the case ruled in favor of the defendant and granted a motion to dismiss the case on the bases that the abortion laws in the District of Columbia are to vague. It is this motion for dismissal that is being appealed.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Court Decides if Child Support Obligations can be Waived

by Stephen Bilkis

Anna O’Connor is the respondent and James G. Curcio is the appellant in this case.

The father is appealing to recover child support payments.

The issue became whether or not child support payments that are due can be waived because of an order of judgment. As long as the obligation to make those payments hasn’t occurred, they can be waived.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Decides if Parent of Emancipated Child Should Receive Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Thomas B. is the respondent and Lydia D. is the appellant.

History

Two parents tried to come to a written agreement where child support payments would be terminated because the child being supported had obtained a full time job. However, economic independence of a child is not enough reason to discontinue required child support payments.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Petitioner Seeks Increase in Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

Maureen K. is the petitioner in this case and James H. is the respondent.

History

In 1995, a motion was filed that aimed to increase the child support payments made by Mr. H from $45 to $106 weekly. Mr. H objected to this order, and a Hearing Examiner was assigned to the issue.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Court Rules on Adjustment of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the plaintiff is Margaret A., and Shawn B. is the defendant.

Modification of Child Support

Three circumstances entitled a person to seek an adjustment of assessed child support. The first is if a drastic change in circumstances occurs. The second is if either party’s income has changed by more than 15% since the last time the order was modified or from when it was entered. Finally, it can be challenged for modification if it has been more than three years since an order was entered on the matter.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Determines if Couple was Married through Common Law Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Family 19

This is a hearing for divorce and the plaintiff and defendants are Chaachou versus Chaachou et al.

Original Case

Published on: April 10, 2012

Defendan Claims Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the father and the respondent in the case is the Department of Children and Families. The lawyer for the petitioner is Kathleen K. Pena from the Law Office of Kathleen K. Pena. The lawyers for the respondent are Charles J. Crist, Jr., The Attorney General, and Lori R. Shapiro, the Assistant Attorney General of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The judge for the case is J. Klein.

Petitioner’s Case

The petitioner in this particular case is seeking a petition for writ of prohibition for one of his children, T.S. He states that the state of Florida does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of T.S., his child. The petitioner states that he should be granted the petition based on the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514 in the Florida Statutes. He states that as the child, T.S. was not born while they resided in Florida, the state does not have proper jurisdiction to handle this particular case.