Divorce

Published on: February 11, 2014

Father Claims Lack of Jurisdiction in Child Support Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, by permission, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County, as granted the mother’s objection to an order of the same court, dismissing her petition for an upward modification of child support for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to the extent of vacating the order, and remitting the matter to the Support Magistrate to issue supplemental written findings of fact and a new determination on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and the mother cross-appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of the order, as granted her objection to the order, only to the extent of vacating that order and remitting the matter to the Support Magistrate to issue supplemental written findings of fact and a new determination on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the mother, who at the time resided in Ithaca, filed a petition in the Family Court, Tompkins County, for child support with respect to the parties’ child. At the time, the father resided out of state. Pursuant to an order, the Family Court, Tompkins County, directed the father to pay the mother certain child support. Thereafter, the mother, who stated that she was residing in Brooklyn, filed a petition in the Family Court, Kings County, for an upward modification of child support against the father, who continued to live outside of New York State.

The father argued, inter alia, that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the child support, because New York had not remained the “residence” of the mother and/or the parties’ child for purposes of Family Court Act § 580-205(a). In an order, the Support Magistrate dismissed the mother’s petition on that ground. The mother filed an objection to the Support Magistrate’s order, arguing that the record developed before the Support Magistrate established that the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction and that her petition for an upward modification should be heard and determined on the merits.

Published on: February 11, 2014

Court Decides Custody in Light of Fathers Drug Use

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that from 28 June 2006 to 3 July 2006, respondent father was admitted to W Hospital where he was diagnosed with psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, poly-substance dependence, substance induced psychotic disorder, borderline and anti-social personality traits. Following hospitalization, respondent father failed to take his prescribed medication (risperdal and klonopin), or obtain psychiatric treatment.

On 15 April 2007, respondent father committed acts of domestic violence against respondent mother in the presence of the child. Consequently, he was arrested and charged with assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree. On 20 July 2007 and 4 October 2007, respondent father violated the order of protection issued by the Criminal Court in that he was observed in the presence of respondent mother. He was thereafter charged with two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the respondent father had a history of marijuana use as proven by his testing positive for that substance on 19 May 1998, 12 June 1998 and 29 May 2006.

Published on: February 10, 2014

Court Rules in Custody Battle

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, a Kings County Family attorney said that the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, as, after a hearing, denied his petition to modify a prior custody order of the Family Court, Kings County, awarding the parties joint legal custody of their child with physical custody to the mother and liberal visitation to the father, so as to award him sole custody of the child, granted the mother’s petition to modify the prior custody order so as to award her sole custody of the child and to establish a visitation schedule for the father, and dismissed his two family offense petitions.

In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child, which requires evaluation of the “totality of the circumstances”. Here, the attorney for the child has advised this court of significant new developments which have occurred since the issuance of the order appealed from, including the commencement of a Family Court article 10 child protective proceeding against the mother, the filing of multiple domestic incident reports by both parents, and the lodging of complaints against both parents with the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that in light of these new factual circumstances, which this Court may properly consider, the record before us is no longer sufficient to determine which custodial arrangement is in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to be consolidated with the related petitions pending in the Family Court, Kings County, and for a new hearing and a new custody determination thereafter by the Family Court, Kings County. The Court expressed no opinion as to the appropriate custody determination.

Published on: January 16, 2014

Court Discusses Doctrine of Comity

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the Mother and the Respondent Father are both Egyptian nationals and were married in Egypt and have one daughter born in January, 1987. The parties were divorced on July 11, 1987, in a court of competent jurisdiction. Pursuant to the divorce decree, the Father agreed to pay pounds sterling> E. 350 monthly in addition to school, treatment and child custody expenses for the daughter. The Father paid this amount for the month of June, 1987, only. Thereafter, he fled to the United States, without giving notice to the Mother and has not paid his Egyptian child support obligation since. The Mother obtained a judgment for child support in the appropriate Egyptian Court, for a sum of pounds sterling E. 100 to be paid monthly, from November 8, 1987, to the present. Both the Mother and Father appealed this decision and the Egyptian Appellate Court sustained the initial judgment of pounds sterling E. 100 monthly for child support. The Court issued the judgment upon the Father’s salary in Egypt and stated that the amount of support could not be increased until his affluence and change in financial status was proven with American financial statements. The Mother has no way of obtaining the necessary proof in Egypt because the Father is not in Egypt and refuses to give her the appropriate documentation. The Father appealed the judgment of pounds sterling E. 100 monthly, and the court held that the amount was appropriate to the Father’s financial status in Egypt and that the father owes a non-delegable duty of child support to his daughter under Egyptian civil and religious law. The Father was held in contempt for his failure to pay child support in 1995 when he returned to Egypt. The Father would be held in contempt again, should he return to Egypt, for his willful failure to support his child. His child support obligation, based on the current value of the Egyptian pounds sterling E., equals around $29.41 monthly. Thus, his total arrears resulting from the Egyptian judgment is $13,763.88 to date.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the Mother entered the United States on a student visa and filed a petition for child support in Albany County Family Court. The Mother resided in Towson, Maryland, until the middle of May, 1996, when the visa expired and she returned to Egypt with her daughter. The Mother currently resides in Alexandria, Egypt. The Mother appeared in person on May 2, 1996, for a hearing in Albany County Family Court. The Father resides in Albany, New York and appeared personally at the same hearing. Thus, the Court has personal jurisdiction over both parties.

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said the Mother filed a set of objections with service of process to the Order of the Hearing Examiner. The Mother objected to the dismissal of her complaint and stated that the failure to provide a Family Court Act (FCA) affidavit when the Hearing Examiner was on notice that the Mother had returned to Egypt was an unreasonable request and abuse of discretion. The Father filed a Rebuttal with service of process and claimed that since the Mother had re-alleged each and every objection submitted to the Court, the Mother has opened the door to rebut those objections and, therefore, the previous request deemed untimely is now resubmitted and should be deemed timely. The Father states that the dismissal of the Mother’s petition was proper and consistent with FCA. The Court will consider the Father’s argument that the court had the power and authority to construe the Mother’s petition as one for enforcement and modification. Furthermore, the Father correctly states that, with a foreign support order in hand, the Mother may come to a New York court and bring an action for enforcement or modification of the foreign support order.

Published on: January 15, 2014

Mother Challenges Custody Arrangment

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties in this matter initiated a stipulation of settlement which was so ordered by the court. The stipulation provides that it will survive and shall not merge into any decision of divorce.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that also provides for joint legal custody of the parties’ children with residential/physical placement to the mother. It provides for therapeutic visitation between the father and the children with one physician as well as an extensive parenting schedule for the father. The stipulation further provides that the father will pay the child support and certain other expenses.

The father then moved for temporary sole custody of his four children and subsequently granted by the court.

Published on: January 14, 2014

Petitioner Seeks to Modify Custody based on Allegations of Neglect

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that it is not disputed that a boy was born to a woman. Four days later, the mother and Mr. B. signed an acknowledgment of paternity regarding the boy. The mother and Mr. B. were never married. On June 12, 2008, before the child was one year old, Mr. B. filed a custody petition, alleging that he is the father of the child, that the mother is unfit, mentally unstable, on and off anti-depressants, unstable, violent, neglectful of her other child, and even practices demonic witchcraft.

On September 24, 2008, the support litigation was started when the Department of Human Services — CSEU as assignee of the mother filed a petition for child support against the boy, alleging that Mr. B. was the father of the child based on the Acknowledgment of Paternity previously signed by both the mother and Mr. B. In the support paperwork, the mother indicated there were two possible fathers. This was apparently initially overlooked.

A New York Custody Lawyer said on October 30, 2008, and with both parties represented by counsel, the parties consented to an order of joint custody, primary residence of the child with the mother and periods of visitation with Mr. B.

Published on: January 12, 2014

Mother Files Looking to Enforce and Modify Child Support Obligations

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a couple entered into a separation agreement and it was recited. The parties were aware of the condition of the child support law and their respective rights and obligations. However, they agreed to depart from the child support guidelines, noting that the mother was capable of providing basic support without assistance from the father, and that the child would spend about thirty-five percent of her time with her father during which time he would pay all her expenses. Further, the father will pay for the child’s clothing, with the mother’s assistance in shopping, and would fund a college trust.

Initially, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said the parties followed the terms of the separation agreement. The mother retained the primary custody while the child visited her father once a week and on alternate weekends. In addition, the child spent alternate school holidays and time with the father each summer. During the visits, the father will paid all expenses.

Previously, the three would take shopping trips for clothing, at the father’s expense. The compliance of the agreement broke down when the child refused to accompany her father on a summer trip he had planned, and instead returned to her mother’s home. After that, all significant visits between the father and his daughter came to an end, as well as the father’s financial support to his daughter.

Published on: January 11, 2014

Father Appeals Increase in Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a proceeding for an upward modification of an award of child support, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, entered December 12, 1990, which denied his objections to an order of the same court, entered September 5, 1990, which, after a hearing, increased his weekly child support obligation from the sum of $25 to the sum of $150 per week for his daughter Shannon retroactive to August 18, 1989, and directed him to pay an additional $25 per week to satisfy arrears. The parties were married in December 1972 and their union produced two children, a daughter, born June 9, 1973, and a son, born August 3, 1977. In September 1979 the parties entered into a separation agreement that provided, inter alia, that the mother would receive custody of the children, and that the father would pay weekly child support of $25 per child.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, in November 1979 a judgment of divorce was entered incorporating the provisions of the separation agreement which survived and did not merge in the judgment. In 1979 at the time of the divorce, the children were six and two years old, respectively. The father’s gross earnings were approximately $16,800 per year. The mother was unemployed. Alleging a change in circumstances and that the needs of both of the children were not met by the father’s contribution to their support, the mother sought an upward modification of the child support set 10 years earlier. Subsequent to the filing of the mother’s petition, the parties’ son moved to his father’s residence.

A New York City Family Lawyer said that, in support of her petition which then sought increased child support for the parties’ daughter, the mother testified to increased expenses due to the daughter’s growing and different needs, the increased cost of living, as well as substantial improvements in the financial circumstances of the father, who was then earning in excess of $70,000 per year. Based upon the testimony and the evidence, the Hearing Examiner determined that a change in circumstances had occurred warranting both an increase in the father’s support obligation for their daughter, and an obligation on the part of the mother (now a noncustodial parent to the parties’ son) to contribute to his support. Having found the requisite change in circumstances, the Hearing Examiner appropriately applied the Child Support Guidelines formula to both parties’ support obligations. Although the mother was unemployed at the time of the proceeding, the hearing examiner imputed income to her in the sum of $16,000, based upon her prior employment experience. The net effect of the application of the formula to the income of both parties resulted in an increased obligation on the part of the father for his daughter’s support requiring him to pay $150 per week.

Published on: January 10, 2014

Court Decides if it Erred in Child Support Determination

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, petitioner objects to the order which terminated the order of child support of December 12, 1988. The objections are sustained and the order terminating the December 12, 1988 order of child support is vacated and the order of child support is continued. The child was born out-of-wedlock on September 17, 1987 and shortly thereafter began to receive support from the petitioner/Commissioner of Social Services. On October 13, 1988, the Commissioner commenced a proceeding to declare the respondent the child’s father and to collect child support from him. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the third paragraph of the Commissioner’s petition alleges that she had received an assignment from the child’s mother and that the child is or is likely to become a public charge. The petition prayed for child support.

A New York Bronx Lawyer said that, on September 12, 1988 Hearing Examiner entered both an order of filiation and an order of child support, both on the father’s consent. On February 28, 1990, a child protective proceeding pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act was commenced against the child’s mother resulting in the May 29, 1990 order placing the child in foster care. It would appear that the father was neither a respondent nor an intervenor in that proceeding.

A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, on February 28, 1991 the father moved to terminate his order of child support effective May 29, 1990 and for a refund of all child support paid to the Commissioner from that date. The essence of the father’s argument in support of his motion is that since the Commissioner was acting, at least in part, as the assignor of the custodial mother when the original order of support was entered, it should be vacated because the Commissioner now has custody of the child. There is no dispute that the Commissioner has continued to support the child during the entire time in issue.

Published on: January 9, 2014

Court Decides Whether to Modify Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, entered October 31, 2008, as denied his objections to an order of the same court, dated February 13, 2008, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother’s petition for a modification of her child support obligation, vacated a prior order of child support nunc pro tunc to September 9, 2005, vacated the mother’s child support arrears, and directed the Support Collection Unit to stop charging or collecting child support against the mother.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in modifying the child support obligation of the mother.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said The Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) (Family Ct Act § 413; Domestic Relations Law § 240) imposes a “basic child support obligation” upon a parent based upon numerical guidelines, and a rebuttable presumption exists that the amount of child support calculated under the statutory guidelines is correct. However, this presumption may be rebutted, and the support obligation adjusted, if the court finds that the noncustodial parent’s support obligation is “unjust or inappropriate” based upon its consideration of statutory factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413(1)(f). Such factors include, inter alia, the financial resources of each parent (Family Ct Act § 413[1][f][1]), the relative gross income of each parent (Family Ct Act § 413[1][f][7]), and “any other factors the court determines are relevant in each case” (Family Ct Act § 413[1][f][10]; see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][f][1], [7], [10] [setting forth the same factors]). Where, after considering the statutory factors, “the court finds that the non-custodial parent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay such amount of child support as the court finds just and appropriate” and shall set forth its reasons therefor in a written order.