New York City

Published on: December 7, 2012

Court Hears Child Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

The subject children are two minor boys, born November 26, 2001, and, born August 1, 2005. After the birth of the first child, the mother moved, with him, to Florida. Thereafter, by stipulation dated October 27, 2003, the parties agreed to joint legal and residential child custody until the first born child reached school age, at which point residential custody would revert to the mother on condition that she moved back to New York. Before the first born child reached school age, the parties reconciled, and resided together in Suffolk County, where the second child was born.

A New York Family Lawyer said that on April 2007, a Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the mother took both children from Centereach in Suffolk County to live with her mother in the Bronx, and filed petitions for sole child custody. The father filed cross petitions for sole child custody. In May 2007, an order of protection was entered upon consent, directing the father to stay away from the mother, her home, and her place of employment, except for visitation purposes. The parties agreed that the father would have visitation on alternate weekends. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted with respect to custody. It is clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing that both parties are loving parents and neither party is unfit. However, the record discloses certain troublesome facts about each of the parties. It is apparent that the relationship between the parties was a stormy one, and the father acknowledged that “everybody yells.”

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the Family Court directed the mother to register the first born child in first grade in the Middle Country School District in Suffolk County, where he had attended kindergarten. However, when the mother changed her residence and place of employment to Queens, she enrolled the first borne child in school there, contrary to the direct order of the Family Court. At the custody hearing, the father’s neighbor testified that he had heard the father cursing, and observed visitors and noisy parties at the father’s house “at all hours of the night.” In August 2007 he observed police activity at the father’s house, and spoke to the police detectives. The father acknowledged that his house, owned by him and the mother jointly, was in foreclosure. Further, the father had a criminal record consisting of two felony convictions and one misdemeanor conviction from the 1990s. At the conclusion of the hearing, the children’s attorney noted that this was a difficult case since both parties were “clearly flawed,” but also had “strengths and good points.” However, she recommended that the children remain with the mother in the interest of stability, since the mother had had sole custody of them for seven months during the pendency of the proceedings, and the father’s house was in foreclosure.

Published on: December 6, 2012

Parties Dispute Grounds for Divorce

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a divorce proceeding being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. The defendant in the matter is Thomas Hannigan and the plaintiff in the case is Barbara Hannigan.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and the defendant are respectively 44 and 43 years old and have three children together. The children are 18, 13, and 11 years old. The couple was married on the fifteenth of June, 1985. The plaintiffs have begun this matrimonial action on the 20th of June, 2005. The main issue in this dispute is how the marital property of the couple is going to be distributed. The marital property includes a substantial amount of real property that they own as tenants by the entirety, the money that is located in a bank account that is only in the name of the plaintiff, and the value of the business owned by the defendant and the value of the plaintiff’s nursing degree and nursing license.

Published on: December 5, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Annulment Because Husband is Still Married to Another

by Stephen Bilkis

Divorce 1

This is a case being heard in the Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court located in New York County. The plaintiff in the matter is Ethel Phillips and the defendant is Gilbert L. Phillips. The plaintiff is seeking a separation from the defendant, who is her husband. Ms. Phillips alleges that the defendant has treated her cruelly and fails to provide fro her. The defendant denies these allegations and has entered a counterclaim seeking an annulment from the marriage. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant states that their marriage should be annulled because the plaintiff was still married to another individual at the time the couple was married.

Case Background

Published on: December 3, 2012

Court Terminates Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On or about 8 June 2009, the Family Court of Bronx County issued an order which, among others, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and committed his custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said in appeal to the said decision followed.

The Issues of the Case:

Published on: December 2, 2012

Court Discusses Excessive Corporal Punishment

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the mother of the two subject children, the son, born April 30, 1994 and the daughter, born March 28, 2001. A New York Family Lawyer said Respondent also has an older daughter, currently a third year student at, visits the home on some weekends and during school vacations. A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, respondent was arrested and New York City Children’s Services removed the two subject children (son and daughter) from her care pursuant to Family Court Act § 1024 prior to the filing of a petition. The NYCCS filed petitions against respondent in Kings County Family Court. The petitions allege that the mother neglected the child (now 16-year-old son), by inflicting excessive corporal punishment upon him. Specifically, the petitions allege that, NYPD responded to a 911 call made from a business near the case address after her son left the home because his mother beat him with a belt. The petitions further allege that the son reported that the beating took place after his mother learned that he had failed a number of classes. When he tried to get away, the mother allegedly grabbed him, tied him to the chair and hit him again. He also reported that his mother had used physical discipline in the past although this time was worse than other times. Finally, the petitions allege that the daughter is a derivatively neglected child by virtue of the neglect of respondent’s son.

A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, on the day the petitions were filed, the judge granted the request of NYCCS for a removal of the children and temporarily released them to their maternal aunt. The Judge entered a temporary order of protection against respondent on behalf of the children directing that she refrain from the use of corporal punishment. The Judge also ordered that the mother have liberal supervised visitation at the aunt’s home.

A New York Custody Lawyer said two days after the incident, the mother enrolled in a number of programs offered by Family Dynamics. She immediately started a 16 week parenting support program and thereafter attended every Saturday. She never missed a session. She also started a 12 week anger management program which she attended every Saturday. She never missed a session. She started individual counseling and later found her son a therapist as well. She visited the children every day. She did their laundry, made them lunch and had two meals each day with them whenever possible. She checked their homework and was present for all of their doctors’ appointments.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Hears Child Protective Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This child protective proceeding was commenced on June 17, 1983, pursuant to Family Court Act, Art. 10. A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the neglect petition was filed one week after the police had responded to a neighbor’s call of a child beating, whereupon it was ascertained that the subject child, had multiple bruises, welts and lacerations. The hospital record, almost 50 pages in length, is replete with gross references that there were “multiple bruises all over body,” both old and fresh injuries, cigarette burns and belt buckle marks. The subject child, who was approximately 5 years of age at that time, also disclosed that she had been previously raped by her uncle, the mother, was arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor and, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to probation. Although she initially admitted that she had hit the subject child with a belt, she later denied it, claiming that the injuries were self-inflicted and, subsequently, she stated that she only hit the child with the cloth part of the belt.

A Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer said it appears that the mother has had a long history of psychiatric problems, having been in foster care almost since birth. At the age of 15, while she was living with her mother, she was sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriend, resulting in the birth of the subject child on June 20, 1978. Her other child, was born on July 5, 1982. At the time of these events, the respondent mother was employed as a typist and, to save the expense of babysitters, she had asked her brother, to stay with the children while she was at work. It is alleged that, between April and June, 1983, her brother repeatedly sodomized the subject child, who, although afraid to tell her mother did tell a neighbor’s son, whose mother told the respondent mother what had occurred. She did not report this to the police but claims she did attempt to comfort the child.

A New York Family Lawyer said that, a fact-finding hearing was held on December 21, 1983, where the court, over the objection of both the assistant corporation counsel and the law guardian, accepted an admission of neglect by the mother that she had hit the child on the arm with a cloth belt, but not with the belt buckle. The court did not allow any other evidence on the issue of abuse or neglect. Subsequently, a dispositional hearing was held, at which a staff psychiatrist, with the Family Court Mental Health Services, testified that the subject child was fearful of her mother, had refused any visitation with her and was not interested in returning to her custody. It was recommended that the child be continued in foster care and, receive psychiatric treatment, with limited supervised visitation. A psychological evaluation disclosed that the child was emotionally traumatized as a result of the mother’s physical and verbal abuse and that returning the child to the mother would, in all likelihood, lead to further abuse in the future.

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 17, 2012

Court Alters Child Visitation Schedule

by Stephen Bilkis

In a proceeding to determine child custody pursuant to Family Court Act, in which the mother cross-petitioned for modification of an order of the Bronx County Family Court, granting the father child custody of his daughter, the father appeals from a dispositional order of the Nassau County Family Court, which, after a hearing, granted permanent child custody of the couple’s two children to the mother.

A New York Family Lawyer said by petition, the father, a resident of Nassau County, requested legal custody of his son who was born in 1987. In his petition, he asserted that he had been left with physical custody of his son since March 5, 1988, when his wife moved to Bronx by herself. However, the evidence adduced at the subsequent hearing reveals that the mother took her son with her when she left.

In her cross petition, the mother confirmed that until March 1988 she resided with her husband along with their son and their daughter, who was born in 1982. She alleged that she left his husband’s residence in March and that he refused to allow her to take their daughter with her. She requested modification of a prior order of the Bronx County Family Court, pursuant to which custody of her daughter had been awarded to his husband, and further requested permanent custody of her daughter.

Published on: November 16, 2012

Mother Seeks to Modify Custody Arrangement

by Stephen Bilkis

This action arises out of a previously child custody case. A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married and divorced by a decision which incorporated the condition of settlement placed on the record in open court. The condition and decision of separation provided that the parties should share joint custody of their daughter with her primary residence being with the mother.

Consequently, the father filed an application requesting custodial time with their daughter. The mother however cross-moved for an order suspending the father’s visitation with the child, appointing a new law guardian, and referring alleged evidence of the father’s abuse to the child. The father thereafter filed an application for sole custody of the child and requested that the mother have only supervised visitation. The court appointed then a forensic psychologist to interview both parties and the child, and to prepare forensic evaluations. The forensic psychologist filed her report, in which she recommended that the father should receive sole custody and that the mother must have liberal visitation. In response to a report of suspected child abuse and maltreatment of the child filed by the mother, a trial was held. Thereafter, an order continuing joint custody, but providing that primary physical custody of the child would be with the father and the mother would have supervised visitation two to three times a week, was issued.

A New York Custody Lawyer said an eleven day trial took place and during which numerous witnesses testified, including the forensic psychologist, the mother of the child, the father of the child, a case worker, a child protective specialist, the mother’s former husband, and two certified social workers. According to the judge extensive written decision, the forensic psychologist testified with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that the father should receive physical custody of the child and that the child should visit with the mother in the mother’s home. The psychologist’s forensic reports were also introduced into evidence. The child’s law guardian took the position that the father should receive sole custody. Afterwards, the court awarded the father sole custody of the child, with the mother to have supervised visitation. In addition, an order setting the details of the custody and visitation arrangements were signed.

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.