Divorce

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.

Published on: November 14, 2012

Court Reverses Child Support for Non-Biological Child

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case,a New York Family Lawyer said the Defendant moved for an order: (1) modifying the Judgment of Divorce to remove any reference to the Plaintiff’s Child as his child; (2) removing any and all obligations of defendant to pay child support for Plaintiff’s Child; (3) directing the Office of Child Support Enforcement to stop any action to enforce payment of child support arrears of the defendant for Plaintiff’s Child; (4) requiring Plaintiff to repay all past child support payments made by defendant; and (5) requiring Plaintiff to pay attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements for this action.

Based on the records of the case, plaintiff and defendant were married on April 15, 2002 but only began to live together in February 2003. The Child was born on November 15, 2002. On June 2, 2003, the Family Court ordered defendant to pay $ 44 per week for child support. The Plaintiff commenced a divorce action on January 26, 2004 based on cruel and inhuman treatment. By judgment dated August 30, 2004, the Supreme Court granted the Plaintiff a divorce on defendant’s default, and incorporated the terms of the Family Court child support order.

Thereafter, a New York Custody Lawyer said the defendant filed a summons and petition for visitation in Family Court. As the visitation case was proceeding, defendant began to question whether he was the biological father of the Child. On February 10, 2005, defendant took the Child for a DNA test, which excluded the defendant as the biological father of the Child. Since February 2005, neither defendant not his family has had any communication with the Child.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Court Decides Grandparent Custody Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said a grandmother filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to compel the adoptive parents of her infant grandchild to bring the child to court. A writ of habeas corpus is an order which may be issued by a court to compel any person having physical custody over a person to bring that person to court.

The grandmother alleges that her grandchild was born sometime in 1957 and was in her care until 1962. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the father of her grandson was imprisoned and the grandchild’s mother, the daughter of the petitioner died in 1960 as a result of health complications arising from her drug addiction.

A year later, in 1962, the grandmother found herself in court locked in a custody battle over her grandchild against the paternal grandmother of her grandchild. After proceedings in the family court, the custody of the child was awarded to the paternal aunt of the grandchild (the sister of the child’s father). The paternal aunt has had custody over the grandchild from 1963 until this petition for habeas corpus was filed in 1967. Under the custody order, the maternal grandmother (the petitioner in this case) was awarded visitation rights.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights of Nonbiological Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner seeks visitation with the subject child, the biological child of the respondent. The petitioner and respondent married sometime after the child’s birth. A New York Family Lawyer said the child was born on November 17, 1997 and nearly two years later the petitioner executed an acknowledgment of paternity and had his name added to the child’s birth certificate. For several years the couple held him out to be her biological father even though they knew he was not. The petitioner and respondent began having marital problems and the child’s biological father, at some point apparently came back into the respondent’s life. A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the child’s biological father seeks an order of filiation and the respondent seeks to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, claiming her signature on it was forged. The biological father and the mother filed their respective petitions simultaneously. In addition, the respondent is pursuing a family offense proceeding against her estranged husband alleging that he verbally harassed her over the phone. A criminal case based on allegations made by the mother against her estranged husband is also pending before this court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, a hearing was commenced with respect to the respondent mother’s petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity on the grounds of fraud. During the hearing, however, and after the biological father filed his paternity petition, the parties conceded that he is the subject child’s biological father. Independent DNA testing of the biological father confirmed his paternity. This evidence obviates the need for the court to continue taking testimony with respect to the allegations of fraud because Family Court Act Â§ 516-a (b), the statute governing acknowledgments of paternity, specifically states that the court “shall” vacate an acknowledgment if it finds the alleged father, here, the biological father, is in fact not the biological father. To ask the court to continue hearing testimony on the allegations of fraud â€” as the petitioner and the law guardian do in their briefs â€” is in contravention of the plain language of Family Court Act Â§ 516-a (b). It is also asking this court to ignore indisputable scientific evidence and the parties’ own admissions. The Court said that acknowledgment of paternity is vacated and that the biological father herein will be issued an order of filiation.

The issue in this case is whether the petitioner, as a biological stranger, has standing to maintain his visitation petition.

Published on: November 10, 2012

Court Decides Child Custody Issue

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. A New York Family Lawyer said before the first born child reached school age, the parties reconciled, and resided together in Suffolk County, where the second child was born.

In April 2007, a New York 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 Bronx Child 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, a Nassau County Family Lawyer said 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: November 9, 2012

Defendant Moves to have Order for Protection Vacated

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Family Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The petitioner in this case is Lloyd Grant. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent of the case is Darlene Pugh. The respondent, Darlene Pugh has moved to have the final order of protection granted in favor of the petitioner of Lloyd Grant vacated. The respondent failed to appear on the 18th of August, 2008 when this order was made. She denies being served with any papers for the previous hearing.

Case Background

On the 15th of August, 2008, the petitioner, Lloyd Grant filed a family offense petition stating that on the 8th of August, 2008, when they were leaving the Bronx Family Court the respondent threatened him. The couple was appearing in a delinquency action that involved their son DG. At the time the threat was made, Ms. Pugh was escorted from the building, but she was not arrested. A New York Custody Lawyer said the couple was scheduled to reappear regarding the delinquency matter on the 18th of August, 2008. A temporary ex parte order of protection was issued to Mr. Grant returnable on the same date as the delinquency hearing was scheduled.

Published on: November 8, 2012

Mother Accused of Neglecting Children

by Stephen Bilkis

The natural parents, never married but lived together from 1967 to 1974, during which time three children were born. A New York Family Lawyer said that on August 1974, after many earlier criminal convictions, the natural father was convicted on drug charges and sentenced to prison for a two-year-to life sentence. In 1975 the natural mother voluntarily placed the second born child, who suffers from severe physical and mental handicaps, in temporary foster care. The mother abandoned the two other children and on December 7, 1976 the Family Court placed them in the Commissioner of Social Services custody for 18 months. A New York Custody Lawyer said that, during his entire imprisonment the natural father (whose whereabouts was then unknown) made no attempt to stay in touch with his family and he testified he heard nothing from the natural mother. Only after the agency, through its own diligent efforts, located him in a Correctional Facility in August 1977, did the natural father learned of the children’s foster care placements; immediately after being paroled, in September 1977, he visited the agency to seek custody or visitation. The three children, meanwhile, had lived in separate foster homes and facilities until summer 1977. The foster parents, had asked the agency for a handicapped child to adopt in 1976. After she had been placed in their home for some two months, the foster parents’ requested that the two other children join her; the children were reunited in September 1977 for the first time since 1975.

A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that the agency denied the natural father’s requests for custody or visitation, and he began legal proceedings to protect his rights. On December 1, 1977 he was adjudicated the legal father, and, by agreement among counsel he had two visits with the children, the first in December 1977 and the second in February 1978. Only the oldest child had any recollection of her natural father, having been only one year old when he was imprisoned, and the handicapped child being mentally incapacitated. When these proceedings came to trial the natural father was unemployed, on parole, and living on public assistance with a woman he had known less than a year, who was expecting his child in December 1978. The foster parents live with the three children in a three-bedroom suburban garden apartment. The foster father is employed as a maintenance man; foster mother is a full-time housewife.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that the New York Hospital filed a petition pursuant to Section 384-b of the Social Services Law (“SSL”) seeking termination of parental rights and a transfer of custody and guardianship to NYFH; a petition was also filed by the Commissioner of Social Services (“CSS”) pursuant to Family Court Act (“FCA”) Section 1055 seeking an extension of this court’s original placement order entered in the course of a prior Article Ten neglect proceeding; and a petition in the form of a writ of habeas corpus filed by the natural father seeking return of the children to his custody.

Published on: November 7, 2012

Court Decides Custody Arrangment

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband seeks custody of their two children from his wife who surreptitiously left the conjugal home in New York and took the children to Virginia where the wife’s relatives all lived.

During the trial, the husband and the wife testified. A New York Family Lawyer said the mother-in-law of the wife and the sister-in-law of the wife also testified for the husband and against the wife. The judge took the two children to a nearby park and interviewed the children. The judge videotaped this interview with the children.

During the custody hearing it was proved that the husband and the wife had a child when they were just teenagers. They got married within three years after the birth of their first child. The wife was emotionally and physically abused. A New York Custody Lawyer said the abuse consisted of sexual assault. The husband would force the wife to have sex. He would kick the woman and bite her, hit her with his fists in her back and buttocks. He also constantly criticized and insulted her within the hearing of their children.

Published on: November 6, 2012

Court Considers Terminating Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal from an order of the Family Court, New York County, dismissing a petition brought by petitioner Hospital seeking (1) termination of the parental rights of respondent mother; (2) custody of the subject child; and (3) a declaration that the child was free for adoption, pursuant to Social Services Law Section 384-b and Family Court Act, Article Six. A New York Family Lawyer said the out-of-wedlock infant was born on March 25, 1974. The current whereabouts of the father are unknown and there is no evidence of any contact or support by him at any time. The infant came into the custody of the hospital on April 21, 1976 after he was found strapped in his stroller, alone and unattended, at about 4 a. m., near an abandoned building in Brooklyn. The mother was apprehended and arrested for burglary of the building. She subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal trespass. A New York Custody Lawyer said he claimed that on her way to the store with the child she was pursued and had to leave the infant unattended. In consequence of this incident, a finding of neglect was made against the mother by the Family Court, Kings County.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that, the child was placed with the Commissioner of Social Services for an initial period of eight months. Thereafter placement was extended until March, 1979. The mother, herself, had been placed in foster care at the age of 3 because her own mother was unable to care for her and her five brothers and sisters, four of whom were placed in foster care. Her schooling ended at the 10th grade. She was transferred from one institution to another and from one foster family to another until the age of 18. The longest period with a foster parent was from 1972 to 1974. Although she knew her parents, she had no relationship with them. In a psychological evaluation in connection with the placement of the subject child, the mother was diagnosed as an inadequate personality with anxiety features needing psychiatric treatment and counseling. “Therapy should be directed in part to help her to accept responsibility for everything which may happen to her infant.”

During 1976 the mother visited with her son on 12 or 13 separate occasions out of a possible 60 available dates, as noted in the agency records. On September 17, 1976, at the extension of placement hearing, she indicated upset at the decision. She believed her son should have been released to her. She was directed to avail herself of counseling which the agency was directed to provide. In December 1976 she expressed upset that her son was in a foster home in Bronx. In view of the fact that she lived in Brooklyn and she was in an advanced state of pregnancy with a second child, it would be difficult for her to make the long trip to Bronx and visit her son. She could not visit him until after the baby was born. During the entire year 1977, the mother visited the subject child only once. In October 1977 she advised the agency that she wanted her son returned but she was too busy with her second baby. During 1977 she had financial problems, moved from place to place and had fires in at least two of her places of residence. On June 8, 1978 she stated that she could not plan for his son, that she no longer lived with his paramour and was now living with another man. She wished the agency to continue to care for her son and to help her with the many decisions she would have to make. Her new paramour had three children in foster care in Brooklyn. She admitted she could not care for the three children in addition to his son.