Queens

Published on: March 4, 2012

Court Decides Child Support Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case has filed an appeal for final paternity judgment. The court was tasked to determine whether the trial court was mistaking in ordering retroactive child support to the child from beginning on the day he was born. The appellant has cited the statute of limitations to prevent retroactive support. A New York Family Lawyer said that the appellant also indicated in his motion that the retroactive support should not be ordered in this case since the actual financial support was given by the other parties. The appellant also contended that the mother of the child has provided evidence as to the amount of support or has made any clear specifications about the child’s needs. Upon review of the facts of the marital agreement and judgment of the trial court, the appeals court has affirmed the decisions. The court has also declared the retroactive support as rightful. The motion of the appellant was denied.

The appellant and the mother of the child had engaged in sexual relations when they were still dating. The mother of the child was only 19 when she found out that she was pregnant. The mother informed the appellant that she was pregnant and asked if would like to see his child after he pays financial support. The appellant told the mother that she would not want the appellant around the child.

When the child was born sometime later, the mother consulted a legal counsel and proceeded to contact the appellant and the father. A New York Criminl Lawyer said that the mother wanted the appellant to recognize the child as his own and pay for her maternity expenses, insurance and financial support. The mother also demanded that the father pay for her legal fees. The appellant also hired a lawyer and filed a motion denying the child was his own.

Published on: March 3, 2012

Court Rules on Domestive Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A father filed two motions with respect to the termination of his parental rights. Among other things, the father argued that relevant provisions of family laws, which sets out the requirements for an unwed father to have veto rights over his child’s adoption, is constitutionally infirm because it denies him equal protection and due process based on distinctions by gender and marital status.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that according to the facts of the case, the child was born with a positive toxicology for opiates, which resulted in her remaining in the hospital for over a month due to withdrawal symptoms. When the child was released from the hospital, a government agency conducted an emergency removal, and thereafter, the child, pending the resolution of a neglect petition filed against her parents, began to reside with her current non-kinship foster parents.

Sources said that at the time the child was born, both her mother and father were using street methadone and heroin. The neglect petition alleges neglect by virtue of the parents’ substance abuse as well as the mother’s mental illness. The parents were not married. At the last permanency hearing, the court approved the goal of reunification of the child with her parents. But the court extended the child’s placement in foster care after determining that the return of the child home would be contrary to her best interest because the mother failed to make sufficient progress in her mental health and substance abuse services and the father was incarcerated.

Published on: March 2, 2012

Court Rules on Order for Protection for Abusive Husband

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves an appeal questioning whether the Family Court, having found that a victim of domestic violence who has fled the marital home for her safety is entitled to an order of protection, should also have provided a remedy that could restore the victim to her home and exclude her abusers instead of leaving the home in the sole possession of the abusers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to the records of the case, a middle-aged deaf woman filed petitions for protection orders alleging that she had fled her home because of escalating violence and abuse by her husband and their adult son and asking that the orders provide that respondents be excluded from their common residence. She said her husband physically and verbally abused and threatened her, changed the locks on the marital home and refused to give her a key, and forced her to take drugs against her will, and that their son was verbally and physically abusive. The woman said that she fled to her daughter’s home after two incidents in which her husband, who is confined to a wheelchair, pointed a loaded gun at her and threatened to kill her while he was high on cocaine.

As to her younger adult son, the woman said he punched and slapped her when she refused his demands to cook meals or do other errands for him, made at all hours of the day and night. On numerous occasions, father and son acted together to abuse her. In one instance, they changed the locks on the home and refused to give her a key. It was only after she had left home, retained counsel, and obtained an ex parte protection order that they eventually provided her with a key.

Published on: March 1, 2012

Husband Seeks Divorce for Wife’s Smoking Habits

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband filed a petition seeking an order of protection against his spouse, based upon the sole ground that she smokes cigarettes in the presence of himself and the children, causing harm to them.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the records of the case showed that the wife commenced an Action for Divorce on the grounds of domestic violence and cruel and inhuman treatment. The husband brought on an order to show cause in which he seeks a protection order against the wife prohibiting her from smoking cigarettes in the presence of himself and their children, together with other requests. The husband is a physician and claims that his wife’s smoking is causing harmful effects upon their children. He describes his wife as a “chain smoker” who smokes at least three packages each day. He claims that she smokes all over the marital residence. The husband argued that, pursuant to relevant provisions of family laws, the court not only is empowered, but is required to step in and protect the welfare of adults or children wherever they are subjected to any form of harmful or abusive conduct.

The wife contended that she is not a “chain smoker.” However, the wife did not reveal how much she does in fact smoke, nor did she indicate whether she ever smokes in the presence of the children. A New York Custody Lawyer said that the wife said her cigarette smoking is confined to a small T.V. room on the ground floor of the marital residence. She also indicates that she does not smoke in the upstairs area of the house.

Published on: February 29, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Order for Protection Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were married on 1992 and on 2005, the Mother filed for divorce. The couple resolved the issues arising from their marriage and agreed to joint custody of the two subject children, a daughter age 12 and a son age 14. The children would have visitation with each parent pursuant to the detailed schedule set forth and as mutually agreed to by and between the parties. Since then, the children have been spending Mon-Tues with Father, Wed-Thurs with Mother and alternating weekends with each parent. With the exception of Thanksgiving, all holidays are shared equally. The parties agreed that they would alternate Thanksgiving as follows: two years to Mother and one year to Father. Both children excel academically. Neither child is alleged to have special needs.

Petitioner Father is 43 years old. He lives alone with two dogs. He has been engaged since February 2006 to his girlfriend who he intends to marry when the case is over. After his marriage, the Father told his ex-wife he intends to relocate where his fiancé lives and works. As of the time of his trial testimony, the children had met the Father’s fiance approximately six times.

The Father is self employed as a real estate agent and an insurance salesman. He was employed as a Vice President at a division of a Bank, for about eighteen months, but is no longer employed there. A New York Family Lawyer said that no evidence was introduced as to the Father’s current income. The Mother said that she believed her ex-husband may be supporting himself by selling marijuana and using equity from the home. The Mother alleges that their daughter five bags of illegal drugs in his Father’s cellar. The Father admitted that he was arrested for marijuana possession when he was 32 years old.

Published on: February 28, 2012

Court Rules on Jurisictional Issue with Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 29, 2003, the petitioner Mother filed an immediate Family Offense petition with the New York Court, which conformed to the provisions of the Family Court Act. The petitioner requested and was granted a Temporary Order of Protection, which granted temporary child custody to the Mother. The Court, based upon the petitioner’s allegations of domestic violence, directed the Nassau County Department of Social Services to conduct a Court Ordered Investigation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the matter was adjourned and the respondent was served with the Summons, Petition and Temporary Protection Order wherein the respondent was not present.

The Court received the results of the COI which was indicated and closed as to both parents, for inadequate guardianship. There was also some discussion regarding a letter allegedly sent to this Court by a Virginia Court. The file was searched for said letter but there was no such letter in the file. The respondent Father’s counsel requested a continuance, which was granted. The respondent’s lawyer was again instructed to either submit an order to show cause, file a motion or have his client appear on the next court date. The matter was adjourned.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that according to records, sometime during the morning of 2004, the court received a Fax from the counsel’s lawyer purporting to be an Order to Show Cause. The court was also informed that the respondent’s lawyer would not be available to the court until 11:30 AM. At 2:30 PM, the case was called whereupon there being no appearance, the Court granted a two-year Final Protection Order on Default. The Order contained the same provisions as the prior temporary protection order.

Published on: February 27, 2012

Court Issues Order of Protection for Alleged Abusive Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

In November 1998, a review of the documents of the Dominican proceedings confirms that the mother and father separated. At that time, the father consented to the terms of an order of protection, agreeing to refrain from assaulting the mother verbally or physically, and to vacate the family home until the mother was able to find other housing. He agreed to pay child support, and was given regular visitations as long as he behaves appropriately.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother left the Dominican Republic in December 1999, leaving the children with her mother, and remarried in June 2000. Five weeks later, while the mother was still in the United States, the father filed a claim for child custody. The maternal grandmother, who had physical custody of the children at the time, was named as defendant in the matter.

The subject children are the couple’s twin sons, born in 1997 in the Dominican Republic. It is undisputed that the father obtained a default order of custody there, an order appealed by the mother and affirmed by the Dominican court, a month after she had brought the boys to the United States. In quick succession, the IDV Court—which has jurisdiction over both criminal and family law matters—received a criminal prosecution against the father based on his alleged 2002 threats to kill the mother; a writ of habeas corpus filed by the father seeking enforcement of the Dominican custody order; a petition for custody of the two boys filed by the mother on 2002 and a family offense petition filed the same day by the mother alleging additional acts of violence.

Published on: February 26, 2012

Court Rules on Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

The family court in this cased was tasked to decide whether or not it has the right to issue an order of protection against the father of the children who allegedly abused his minor sister-in-law. According to a New York Family Lawyer on behalf of the abused child, the social services department filed a petition against the father for abuse of his sister-in-law and neglecting his own children. Based on the investigation made by the family court, the father is determined to be guilty of abuse.

According to the facts gathered by the investigation, the sister-in-law moved in to the house of the children’s father when she was 16 years old. The father had intercourse with her inside the house and the hotel room where the rest of the family stayed for a brief period. The father was also guilty of neglect since one of his sons was a witness to the sexual abuse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the father also had a loaded gun inside their home which could prove to be dangerous to his sons. One son was still a baby while the other was a toddler during that time.

After the court findings were revealed, the family court has ordered child custody to the mother of the children. The court also did not impose any terms and issued protection orders. The father was ordered by the court to avoid any contact with his sons until they reach the age of majority. No protection order was issued for the abused sister-in-law since she was already 18 by the date of the hearing.

Published on: February 25, 2012

Court Decides Adoption Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This family court will decide on the adoption of a child. The biological father has requested the court to dismiss the adoption hearing. The father also wants to move the entire proceeding to the family court. The petitioner, who is the would-be adoptive father, challenged the motion to dismiss with a petition. An New York Family Laywer the adoptive father included in his decision that the permission of the natural father to adopt the child is no longer required.

The child who was being disputed was conceived when her mother was already separated with her then husband. Sometime later, they were divorced. Since the birth of the child, the father who is also the petitioner in this case, has always asserted his parental rights. After the birth of the child, the mother had reconciled with the natural father but they did not get married again. As a result of their reconciliation, they were opposed to the idea of allowing the natural father to visit her.

The dispute over the child has reached the family court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the proceedings have established that visitation rights should be given to the natural father. The adoptive father has moved to revoke the paternal rights of the natural father by adopting the child himself.

Published on: February 19, 2012

Ex-husband Found in Violation of Order for Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2001 and Bronx County Criminal Court issued a three-year order of protection in favor of a woman and her child and against her ex-husband. In 2002, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a neglect proceeding against the ex-husband. ACS alleged that the ex-husband had not been supporting his child. During the pendency of these neglect proceedings the Bronx County Family Court issued a temporary order of protection, ordering the ex-husband not to have any contact whatsoever with his child or his estranged wife until the neglect proceedings are disposed of by the Family Court.

While the Family Court was hearing the neglect proceedings, ACS filed two petitions for contempt against the ex-husband for having violated the Family Court’s temporary order of protection on May 15, 2003 and November 7, 2003 when he called his child at the apartment of his ex-wife.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on the scheduled date of hearing for the violation petition, the ex-wife failed to appear and so the Family Court found the ex-husband to have willfully violated the temporary order of protection. Later that day, the ex-husband came to court and the Family Court vacated its finding on the violation petition.