New York Family Law Blog

Published on: May 5, 2014

Wife Goes After Back Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 12, 1985, the defendant former husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 16, 1991, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found him in contempt of court and granted the plaintiff former wife a judgment for child support arrears in the amount of $17,040.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the parties were divorced in April 1985 in Nassau County and, pursuant to the terms of the divorce judgment, the former wife was granted sole custody of the parties’ two children, and the former husband was required to pay child support of $60 a week. In 1990, the former wife brought a motion to hold the former husband in contempt based on his failure to pay child support for approximately five years. At a hearing on the contempt motion, the former husband did not dispute that the arrears amounted to $17,040. He argued, however, that the court should consider his application, allegedly pending since 1985, for the elimination of his child support obligation. A Nassau Order of Protection Lawyer said that, in his 1985 motion, the former husband sought, inter alia, transfer of custody of the children and the elimination of his child support obligation based on his allegation that the former wife’s relocation to Dutchess County interfered with his visitation rights. Following a hearing on the motion in 1987, the court determined that the former wife’s relocation did not interfere with his visitation rights and that a transfer of custody was not in the best interest of the children. Because the court did not specifically address the issue of child support in its 1987 decision and order, the former husband now contends that his application to eliminate child support remained pending at the time of the contempt hearing.

A Suffolk County Family Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the court erred in citing defendant in contempt of court and granted the plaintiff former wife a judgment for child support arrears in the amount of $17,040.

Published on: May 4, 2014

Dept. of Social Services Files Case Regarding Abuse of Child

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on July 11, 1984, the subject child born June 1, 1984, was removed from the care of her parents, and placed in foster care by the Nassau County Department of Social Services, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1024. On July 12, 1984, the Department of Social Services filed a neglect petition under docket N-250-84, alleging that Cassandra is a neglected child as defined by § 1012 of the Family Court Act, in that: On or about July 10, 1984, respondent-father beat said child’s half sibling, to a degree that it caused said half sibling death on July 11, 1984. Respondent-father beat said half sibling with such force and effect to cause said half sibling to hemorrhage into his abdomen which was a result of lacerations of the mesentery, with a rupture of the small bowel. In addition, said half sibling had multiple rib fractures on both sides. Respondent-mother was present while said half sibling was being beaten and failed to take any steps whatsoever to prevent it from happening or continuing. It is most likely that said child will be treated in a similar manner.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, by order of this Court, dated July 18, 1984, temporary physical custody of the subject child was placed in the Department of Social Services. By amended temporary order of October 26, 1984, temporary physical custody was continued in the Department of Social Services, with visitation for the parents to be arranged by the Department. On March 28, 1985, the Court ordered the Department of Social Services to arrange visitation for the respondents with Cassandra for one hour each week in the Nassau County Correctional Center. There was a final disposition of the neglect petition. On that date the Court, on consent, adjudged the subject child to be an abused child within the meaning of Article 10 of the Family Court Act, based on the conviction of Eleanor C of Criminally Negligent Homicide in the County Court and ordered that she be placed in the full custody of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for a period of eighteen months, with visitation to the mother arranged by the Department at the Nassau County Correction Center or any other place of confinement. The order further provided that the mother may make application for full custody of the subject child upon her release. On March 18, 1986, there was a final disposition of the neglect petition. The respondent-father waived a dispositional hearing and shared custody of the subject child was placed in the Department of Social Services for a period of eighteen months.

A Westchester County Family Lawyer said that, shortly after the emergency removal and the commencement of the above-mentioned neglect proceeding, the subject child’s paternal grandmother, filed a petition, and dated July 27, 1984, seeking full custody of the subject child. The petitioner testified on her own behalf and called a psychiatrist, and Senior Consulting Psychiatrist, Nassau County Department of Mental Health, as witnesses. A home study of the family, conducted by the Department of Social Services of New Brunswick, Canada, was received in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit I. The mental health evaluation made by the psychiatrist pursuant to the stipulation executed by the parties and their respective attorneys was received in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit II and a report of interviews with the family conducted by him was placed in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit III.

Published on: May 3, 2014

The Issue in this Case is Whether the Court Erred in Awarding the Father Sole Custody of the Child, with Liberal Visitation to the Mother.

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, this is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered April 28, 2009 in Ulster County, which, among other things, awarded plaintiff custody of the parties’ child. Plaintiff (hereinafter the father) and defendant (hereinafter the mother) were married in 2004 and are the parents of a daughter (born in 2005). Within weeks of her birth, the couple began experiencing marital difficulties, stemming from the father’s growing concern about the mother’s mental health. In January 2006, when the child was just five weeks old, the mother vacated the couple’s marital residence in Ulster County and traveled to Nassau County with the child. The father immediately initiated a proceeding in Ulster county Family Court requesting joint custody of the child and an order prohibiting the mother from removing the child from the County. Family Court issued an interim order restricting the mother from leaving the state with the child and set a prompt return date.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, a flurry of litigation between the parties ensued. As relevant to this appeal, within days of the mother’s departure, each party commenced an action for divorce in Supreme Court, the father in Ulster County and the mother in Nassau County, each moving, by order to show cause, for an award of full custody of the child. The actions were consolidated and venue was placed in Ulster County. The mother was initially granted temporary custody of the child, with supervised visitation to the father, and remained in Nassau County during the pendency of the action. Throughout the course of the litigation, the father sought and was awarded increased visitation with the child. By September 2007, when the child was 21 months old, the parties had stipulated to a temporary custody and visitation schedule which provided generous unsupervised and overnight visitation to the father. The parties agreed to proceed to trial on the issues of shared custody and visitation only. Following a 29-day trial, Supreme Court awarded the father sole custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the mother on a set schedule to continue at least until the child began pre-kindergarten. The mother appealed.

A Manhattan Family Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the court erred in awarding the father sole custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the mother.

Published on: May 2, 2014

Department of Social Services Files Petition to Remove Child from Home

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on or about July 5, 2007, the Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter “DSS”) filed petitions against the respondent, seeking the removal of her two children. On the same date, the respondent filed petitions seeking the return of her sons pursuant to FCA § 1028. A hearing was held and on July 24, 2007 respondent’s return petition was denied and the children remained in the physical custody of DSS.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the respondent consented to a finding of neglect in the underlying neglect petition. The Order of Custody to DSS was vacated; a one year Order of Supervision was entered and the children were returned to the respondent. The terms of the Order indicated that the respondent was to cooperate with DSS and Preventive Services, and attend the PACT program. Thereafter, the respondent voluntarily placed the children in foster care, as she reported to be suffering from depression at that time. The children were placed in the home of a certified foster parent, where they continue to reside. The first subject child was three years old and the other was ten months old at the time that they were placed in the foster parent’s home.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the respondent gave birth to her third child, Emma P., on October 10, 2008. On February 9, 2009, DSS filed a neglect petition against the respondent, on behalf of this child, in Nassau County. On February 25, 2009 the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter “ACS”) additionally filed neglect petitions against the respondent in Queens County where the respondent had been living regarding the same child. The Queens County Court paroled the child to the non-respondent father, with supervision by ACS. Additionally, the Court issued a Temporary Order of Protection, which vacated the respondent from the home, prohibited the respondent from having any contact with the child if under the influence of drugs or alcohol and only allowed for agency supervised visits. Upon consultation with this Court, the case was transferred to Nassau County Family Court on or about April 2, 2009.

Published on: May 1, 2014

Court Decides on on New Job for Family Court Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, and a related habeas corpus proceeding, the attorney for the children appeals (1), by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 3, 2010, which, without a hearing, awarded temporary child custody of the children to the father until March 14, 2011, and (2) from an order of the same court dated May 21, 2010, which sustained the father’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the mother to return the children to the father. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 12, 2010, enforcement of the orders was stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeals.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, this case involves a custody dispute between the father of the subject children, who are teenagers, and their adult sister, who had custody of the subject children, based upon an agreement with the mother, which was later revoked.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in granting custody to the father.

Published on: April 30, 2014

Court Rules on Mother’s Motion for Attorney Fees

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said in a child support proceeding, a father appeals from an order of the court, which denied his objection and granted the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Subsequently, the court ordered to reverse the previous decision, on the law, without costs or disbursements, so much of the order, as granted the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee. The matter is also remitted to the family court, for a new determination of the mother’s motion.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said sources revealed that in a previous related case, the court stated that even if the matter of counsel fees is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, it is nonetheless controlled by the equities of the case and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Published on: April 29, 2014

Court Decides Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Family Lawyer said in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, a boy moves to preclude the presentment agency from offering identification evidence at the fact-finding hearing on the ground that it failed to provide timely and adequate notice of its intention to do so as required.

A boy was charged on the instant petition which alleges that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and attempted assault in the third degree.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said according to the appeal, the boy was one of a group of individuals who punched the complaining witness in the head and stole his hat and cell phone.

Published on: April 28, 2014

Court Rules on Huntley Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

It is reasonable for a patient to seek the independent advice of two experts before embarking on a course of treatment. Two experts may evaluate the same data and may arrive at different conclusions. But it is illogical for a patient to seek a second opinion immediately thereafter from the same expert who rendered the first opinion.

A New York Family Lawyer said tht primilarly in the Family Court where the same judge presides at the Huntley Hearing and the fact-finding hearing, it is illogical to re-litigate the same issues determined at the preliminary hearing by requiring that the testimony at the Huntley Hearing be repeated at the fact-finding hearing.

A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that nothing contained in this article, however, precludes a defendant from attempting to establish at a trial that evidence introduced by the people of a pre-trial statement made by him should be disregarded by the jury or other trier of the facts on the ground that such statement was involuntarily. Even though the issue of the admissibility of such evidence was not submitted to the court, or was determined adversely to the defendant upon motion, the defendant may adduce trial evidence and otherwise contend that the statement was involuntarily made. In a case of a jury trial, the court must submit such issue to the jury under instructions to disregard such evidence upon a finding that the statement was involuntarily made.

Published on: April 27, 2014

Court Discusses Housing for the Homeless

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said on this appeal the Appellate Court is asked to review the sufficiency of the New York City Board of Estimate’s compliance with environmental review procedures in implementing a plan to construct 11 transitional residence facilities in various locations throughout the city to house an increasing number of homeless individuals and families seeking shelter. The City of New York is mandated by law and by consent decree to provide housing to every homeless family and individual who so requests.

The city asserts that as of January 1988 it was providing shelter for approximately 8,900 men, 1,300 women and 5,150 families in various locations and types of facilities throughout the city. While the city recognizes that a long-term solution to the problem lies in providing more units of permanent, affordable housing for low and moderate income people, there is also a need for emergency facilities such as shelters, and for transitional residences which are designed to afford a measure of privacy and to provide their residents with intensive social and welfare services and assistance in locating permanent housing. The appellants-respondents contend that these transitional residences will reduce the reliance on expensive hotel space for housing families, improve the quality of housing offered, and alleviate the overburdening of some communities by dispersing the homeless population throughout the city.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that in order to implement this plan, the HRA submitted land use review applications for the proposed transitional residence sites to the DCP pursuant to New York City Charter which governs approvals of site selection for capital projects. This was the appropriate procedure and the Court disagree with the petitioners’ contention that these separate, discrete construction projects involved the type of long range plans for the future growth and development of the city which are governed by New York City Charter.

Published on: April 26, 2014

Family Court Reviews Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that before the Court in this child support proceeding is Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, pursuant to Rule 3211(a)(5) of the C.P.L.R., on the ground of res judicata in that Petitioner’s application for the relief she seeks herein was previously denied by the Supreme Court of Bronx County. The undisputed facts and circumstances surrounding this motion are as follows: On March 2, 1979, a judgment granting Petitioner a divorce from Respondent was entered in Supreme Court, Bronx County. The judgment, which contained no provision for child support, expressly stated that “Family Court is awarded concurrent jurisdiction herein.” Thereafter, in the latter part of 1979, Petitioner brought a proceeding in Supreme Court to modify the judgment so as to include child support payments for the parties’ adopted daughter, and their son. Over the objections of Petitioner’s counsel, the Court by order dated February 19, 1980, referred the matter to a Special Referee to inquire and report with respect to the issues of Respondent’s financial status and ability to pay, the needs of the parties, and visitation.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, a hearing before the Special Referee was held on April 24th and April 25th, 1980, and in the course of that hearing, Petitioner’s counsel called Respondent as a witness. In addition, Petitioner herself testified, but following her refusal to answer proper and pertinent questions on cross examination, the Special Referee granted Respondent’s application to strike Petitioner’s testimony. On June 30, 1980, the Special Referee submitted his report to the Supreme Court, Bronx County. Included in the Referee’s report was his recommendation that the petition be dismissed. Thereafter, on August 26th, 1980, the Supreme Court, over Petitioner’s objection, found “that the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Referee’s report accord with the preponderance of evidence adduced at the hearing held before him, and that no issues remain to be tried,” and granted Respondent’s motion for an order confirming the Special Referee’s report, and dismissing the petition to modify the judgment of divorce so as to include child support payments and visitation. A judgment dismissing the petition was also entered on August 26, 1980, and from that judgment, no appeal was taken by Petitioner.