Queens

Published on: September 30, 2012

Custody Case Remanded for Dispositional Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the petitioner and appellant, St. Christopher – Ottillie and the respondent Lillian T. The matter deals with the dependent children including Michael Anthony Vincent J, et al. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

A New York Family Lawyer said the order that is being appealed was made by Judge Richard Ross in the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was issued on the 8th of February, 1996 and dismissed separate petitions that sought the termination of the respondent’s parental rights with infants Michael Anthony Vincent J. and Rose Antoinette J.

Case Background

Published on: September 28, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Rosita Ram – Parker as the petitioner and Piliganor Parker as the respondent. A New York Family Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Family Court of Bronx County. The respondent has motioned to have an order to vacate a four year final order of protection vacated. This order was issued upon default in the Family Court of Queens County. The protection order requires that the respondent stay away from the petitioner Rosita Ram – Parker and their three children.

Case Procedure History

The petitioner, Rosita Ram – Parker filed an instant family offense petition in the Family Court of Queens County on the first of August, 2006. The petition alleged that the respondent Piliganor Parker had physically assaulted her on a number of occasions and had threatened to shoot her.

Published on: September 27, 2012

Court Affirms Previous Custody Arrangement

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. A New York Family Lawyer said the case involves the petitioner and appellant Angel M. and the respondent Nereida M. The order that is being appealed was made in the Supreme Court of Bronx County by Judge Diane Kiesel. The order granted a final order of custody to the respondent mother with visitation rights given to the petitioner father.

Case Discussion and Decision

When reviewing the records of the case the court finds that it was in the child’s best interest to award custody to the mother. A New York Custody Lawyer said the records show that the father tried to thwart any relationship the mother had with the child. The mother was willing to ensure that the father was given adequate time with the child.

Published on: September 13, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The matter before the court deals with support for a child under the Family Court Act, article 4. The respondent and appellant in the case is Dolores Schaefer Bolatin. The appellant and respondent in the matter is George Bolatin. The case is being heard in the court of appeals in New York.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the divorced wife, Dolores Schaefer Bolatin made an application in the Family Court of Bronx County to modify a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The judgment made in the Supreme Court of Nassau County granted the divorce and directed the ex-husband to pay the divorced wife $75 a week in support plus $17.50 each week for each of their two children. The order awarded custody of the children to the wife and the divorced husband received visitation rights.

Published on: September 11, 2012

Court Discusses Civil Unions

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the biological mother of a six-year-old boy conceived through artificial insemination. Petitioner and the respondent met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont, a month before the boy’s birth. Respondent repeatedly rebuffed petitioner’s requests to become the boy’s second parent by means of adoption.

A New York Custody Lawyer said after the relationship between petitioner and respondent soured they separated, respondent allowed the petitioner to have a supervised visitation with the boy each week on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. However, respondent began scaling back the visits she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the boy.

Petitioner then filed a case with the Supreme Court by order to show cause, seeking joint legal and physical child custody over the boy, restoration of access and decision making authority with respect to his upbringing, and appointment of an attorney for the child.

Published on: September 10, 2012

Father Requests Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce which was granted upon defendant’s (father) default. The Court with respect to the child custody and child support, ordered that plaintiff (mother) shall have custody of the child of marriage and that the father shall pay the Mother as and for the support of the parties’ child the sum of Two Hundred Ten dollars ($ 210.00) per week for child support, on Friday of each week thereafter, which shall be paid to through the Support Collection Unit for Kings County located at NYS Child Support Processing Center.

A New York Family Lawyer said the father, in his affidavit state, that after the divorce, their child resided with the maternal grandmother and other maternal relatives in Brooklyn. Thereafter, without his consent and Court approval, mother removed the child from the State of New York to Ontario, Canada. Father attempted to locate the child in Canada but the same was unsuccessful, so he filed a petition for visitation with the Kings County Family Court, but was unable to effectuate service of summons that resulted to the dismissal of the petition.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said father’s counsel managed to acquire the name and address of the child’s school in Ontario, by securing said information from the child’s former school in Brooklyn. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that father attempted to contact the school in order to gain access to the child, but to no avail because the school refused to give information about the mother and his child.

Published on: September 9, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The mother and the father, who were never married, had one child together who was born in New York. Two months after the child’s birth, the mother and the child resided in New York, while the father resided in Florida, the mother filed petitions in New York seeking an order of filiation and an order of child support, which relief was granted.

A New York Family Lawyer said that according to the father, the mother moved to Florida, and resided there continuously, at which time the father filed a petition in Florida seeking visitation. The Florida proceeding was dismissed, however, based upon the Florida court’s erroneous conclusion that the prior New York filiations proceeding deprived the Florida court of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The father and the mother thereafter filed petitions in New York, where the mother and child were then residing, seeking, respectively, visitation and custody, but neither party informed the New York Court, as required, of the proceedings held in Florida.

Thereafter, a final order granting child custody to the mother and visitation to the father was entered upon the consent of the parties. A New York Custody Lawyer said the mother and the father subsequently filed several petitions in New York, to modify the final order of child custody and visitation, and the father also sought an order transferring jurisdiction of the matter to Florida.

Published on: September 7, 2012

Court Decides Petition for Relocation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Petitioner and respondent are the natural parents of a 7-year old child, born on 11 October 2002, who has lived continuously with the mother. The parties were never married and the mother is currently married to another. The mother also has a 1-year old daughter, born on 14 December 2008.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother and father lived together for approximately three to four years before he left the household when the child was approximately three years old.

Published on: September 6, 2012

Court Examines Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

When the parties entered into their divorce settlement, the petitioner, the respondent and the child resided in Clinton County, New York. Petitioner has continued to reside in New York since the parties separated. Respondent relocated to the State of Connecticut approximately eight years ago. A New York Family Lawyer said that after the relocation, the parties arranged informally for the petitioner to visit with the child for an extended period in New York over the summer and during some of the child’s spring, winter Christmas school vacations. In July of 2008, respondent informed petitioner that if he wanted to exercise any visitation with the subject child he would have to come to Connecticut. The only explanation respondent gave petitioner for her new position was that the subject child has an attitude when she comes home and that petitioner and his family are a bad influence.

Petitioner filed a Petition seeking the modification of the parties’ New York State Judgment of Divorce dated February 25, 1999, regarding petitioner’s visitation with the parties’ child. The respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking the dismissal of petitioner’s petition arguing that the State of New York (where the petitioner resides) lacks exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody proceedings concerning this child. In the alternative, respondent requests that this Court decline jurisdiction in favor of Connecticut (where she and the child reside).

Respondent alleged that in the eight years that he and the child have resided in Connecticut, petitioner’s visitation has been sporadic, averaging approximately three weeks in the summer with an additional week during the year over the last three years. In at least two of the years since the child moved to Connecticut, the visitation has been a total of less than one week. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the overwhelming evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships is in the State of Connecticut and that it would be very inconvenient for the child and respondent to litigate the matter in New York.

Published on: September 4, 2012

Court Discusses Social Services Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The subject child was born on 30 October 2000 and was placed in the care and custody of the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) in February 2002 as a result of neglect allegations against her mother, the appellant (hereinafter the mother). Sometime in June 2002, the mother also gave birth to a son who is not the subject of this proceeding but was also placed in a separate foster care home soon after his birth.

A New York Family Lawyer said after the commencement of the aforesaid neglect proceeding, ACS placed the subject child with New Alternatives for Children, Inc. (hereinafter NAC), a New York-authorized foster care agency. NAC placed the child in the non-kinship foster home of a foster mother (hereinafter the foster mother).