Queens

Published on: September 2, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction in Custody Battle

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The parties were married in 1966 and lived together with the children in Schenectady until they physically separated in 1973. Sometime in January 1974, they entered into a formal separation agreement and the mother was given custody. A New York Family Lawyer said sometime in March of 1974, the agreement was incorporated but not merged in the divorce decree dissolving the marriage granted in the Supreme Court, Schenectady County. The separation agreement contained a provision under which the mother agreed not to remove the children from Schenectady without the consent of the father. The mother soon remarried a man who was then in the military service. Sometime in August of 1974, she sought and received permission to leave Schenectady with the children to accompany her husband to Texas where he was stationed. That marriage was dissolved in 1975 or 1976 and she then moved to the State of Florida. While there, she met and married again. Sometime in January of 1977, she, her new husband and the children moved to Mississippi, where he was attending college. The father resumed contact with the children in Florida in January of 1976 and had them for mutually agreed upon periods of visitation in Schenectady during the summers of 1976 and 1977.

Sometime in the spring of 1978, serious marital difficulties arose between the mother and her husband, leading to the initiation of a divorce action by her in May of 1978. Apparently in an effort to avoid exposure of the children to the domestic turmoil and particularly to alleged harassing conduct of the new husband toward the mother, the parties agreed that the children would start their visitation earlier than usual, after the school year ended in Oxford in May. Thereafter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the father retained the children and then commenced the instant proceeding to change legal custody.

Published on: August 30, 2012

Mother Wants to Relocate with Child

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves an appeal pertaining to the custodial parent’s request to relocate with the parties’ child. The appellate division granted the child’s custody in favor of the mother.

Petitioner mother and defendant father married in January 2004. A New York Family Lawyer said they were divorced a year and a half later. During their marriage, they had a child whose custody is the subject of this petition. The stipulation settling the divorce case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. The defendant father has had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed.

The mother met her future husband on Match.com. The husband was retired from the Air Force, lived in North Carolina and was then involved in a nation-wide job search. Ultimately, Bonnar took a job with Northrop Grumman in San Diego. He had requested to work at Northrop Grumman’s Long Island branch, but the company could not accommodate his request. The mother and the future husband became engaged in May 2008.

Published on: August 28, 2012

Non-biological Father Seeks Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the biological mother of the subject child, a six-year-old boy conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003. Respondent and petitioner met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in November 2003, the month before the child’s birth. Respondent repeatedly refused petitioner’s requests to become the child’s second parent by means of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said after the relationship between the petitioner and respondent soured and they separated, respondent allowed petitioner to have supervised visits with the child each week on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. In the spring of 2008, however, respondent began scaling back the visits. By early May 2008, she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the child.

Petitioner brought the proceeding against the respondent in Supreme Court by order to show cause. She sought joint legal and physical custody of the child, restoration of access and decision making authority with respect to his upbringing, and appointment of an attorney for the child.

At the hearing, the petitioner acknowledged the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Matter of Alison D., which held that only a child’s biological or adoptive parent has standing to seek visitation against the wishes of a fit custodial parent, but contended that another landmark case, which endorsed a nonbiological or nonadoptive parent’s right to invoke equitable estoppel to secure visitation or custody notwithstanding Alison D.

Published on: August 26, 2012

Mother Seeks to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal involves a custodial action with the request of the mother to relocate her child with her. The parties were married but separated about a year and a half. Consequently, they filed a divorce and it was granted. The provision settling the case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. Moreover, the father had a visitation rights every week from Monday at 8:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. The provision allowed relocation within 25-miles from the father’s house in Bronx.

Based on records, the father had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. At the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.

After the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. Consequently, a New York Family Lawyer said she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. She moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. She stated that she was trying to mirror her own childhood and further stated that she had a wonderful suburban upbringing. The mother’s relationship in Connecticut ended when her boyfriend returned to his country. The mother returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Father Brings an Order to Show Cause Regarding Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff father and defendant mother were married in West Point, NewYork. Five years later, they had a daughter. Six months after the child’s birth, the parties separated. The father commenced an action for divorce in NewYork County, where he had moved after the separation.

The NewYork Supreme Court granted a judgment of divorce, incorporating by reference a comprehensive settlement agreement, the terms of which had been negotiated by mother and father in open court, and which survived the judgment. When the judgment was granted, mother and child were living in Las Vegas, Nevada, where they had moved. A New York Family Lawyer said under the settlement agreement, mother had sole legal custody of the child. Father had visitation rights in accordance with a detailed schedule. The settlement agreement provided that “it is expressly understood and agreed that so long as one of the parties herein is a resident of the State of NewYork, the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork shall retain personal jurisdiction of the parties, of the child, and of the case, for all purposes.”

Subsequently, the mother and child moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Later that year, in November, father moved for sole the child’s custody in NewYork, claiming that the mother’s relocations were intended to deprive him from having contact with his daughter. Mother responded by denying father’s allegations, and stating in effect that if the court intended to deny the motion, it should exercise jurisdiction, but if the court was inclined to grant the motion, she should be given an opportunity to file a cross motion seeking to dismiss the action because NewYork was an inconvenient forum.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Parent Looks to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A lady psychiatrist married and then later divorced her husband. Custody of their son was awarded to the lady psychiatrist and liberal visitation rights were granted to the ex-husband.

The lady psychiatrist re-married a civil engineer with whom she had two children aged four and two. A New York Family Lawyer said the lady psychiatrist shelved her career and decided to be a stay-at-home mom and raise her three children. When their son was six years old, the lady psychiatrist encouraged her civil engineer husband to find employment in Dharan, Saudi Arabia where the pay and the benefits were greater than his current employment in New York.

The ex-husband then went to the Family Court of New York to ask the court to stop the lady psychiatrist from re-locating with their son to Dharan, Saudi Arabia. He also prayed that if the lady psychiatrist insists on re-locating her whole family, then custody over their son be awarded instead to him.

Published on: August 20, 2012

Wife Moves Florida has Emergency Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple commenced an action for divorce and for child custody of their minor child. At the time of the action was initiated, the couple were living apart for several months. The wife instituted the action in Florida. She filed and received an ex-parte injunction enjoining either party from removing the child from the state of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. A New York Family Lawyer said the wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Florida. Her petition in Florida has been revised to include the claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Afterwards, the court conducted a joint hearing to New York state domestic relations law. The wife was present at the courthouse in Florida with her counsel and the husband simultaneously appeared in Kings County where both parties were also represented by New York counsel. At the hearing both counsel conceded that New York was the home state of the infant based upon the fact that the child has not resided in Florida for six (6) months prior to the commencement of the action. The husband has persistently argued that the issues of custody and visitation should be argued at New York Court. Conversely, the wife maintained that New York is an inconvenient forum.

The wife predicates her claim of inconvenient forum from the issue that her husband had a history of domestic violence, he has exercised power over her and that the husband has refused to provide adequate support for the wife and the child, that there was an agreement for the wife to live with her parents in Florida and a concession that the issue of the child would be heard in Florida and same was confirmed in an e-mail from the husband.

Published on: August 19, 2012

Court Looks at Jurisdictional Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A man married a physician in June 1985 in New York. They have one child who was born on July 1990 in New York. In June 1991, the man commenced a divorce proceeding, also in New York, which was settled on the record before the trial court in July 1991.

A New York Family Lawyer said that on December 1992, the parties executed a settlement agreement, the terms of which were incorporated by reference, but not merged into, a subsequent judgment of divorce. The settlement agreement provided that it is expressly understood and agreed that so long as one of the parties is a resident of the State of New York, the Supreme Court of the State of New York shall retain personal jurisdiction of the parties, of the child, and of the case, for all purposes.

Earlier in 1992, while the divorce was pending, the woman had moved to Louisiana and had sought, unsuccessfully, to have jurisdiction over the matter transferred to that state. Pursuant to the divorce judgment, the woman was granted sole legal and physical child custody, and the man was granted specified visitation.

Published on: August 16, 2012

When Plaintiff Moved, Court Said She Gave Up Marital Property

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Special Term, located in Nassau County. The plaintiff in the case is Theresa Huber and the defendant in the case is Adolph Huber. Both the defendant and the plaintiff have moved for summary judgment.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties were married in the state of New York in 1946. In 1959, the plaintiff wife moved to Florida and established a residence there. On the 11th of May, 1960, the plaintiff wife was granted an absolute divorce in the state of Florida. The premises of the couple during their marriage was sought to be partitioned.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Decides Issues Need to be Bifurcated

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.