Published on:

A Kings County Child Visitation Lawyer said that a notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and This court is called upon to determine (1) whether the attorney for the defendant’s application to be relieved as attorney of record should be granted; (2) if the defendant’s applications brought pro se while still represented by counsel are properly before the court; (3) whether or not the defendant is entitled to a 30 day stay of all proceedings in the event counsel is relieved pursuant to CPLR 321(c); (4) whether or not the defendant is entitled to a second court appointed counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law section 35(8)(b) on the issues of child custody, visitation and an order of protection; (5) whether or not the defendant should have the benefit of a court assigned interpreter; (6) the sua sponte sealing of photographs of the child’s genitalia and buttocks which were annexed exhibits to defendant’s order to show cause.

The defendant is presently represented by an attorney of her own choosing. Defendant’s counsel moved by order to show caused dated November 5, 2010, to be relieved. The counsel seeks to be relieved as the attorney of record based upon an irretrievable breakdown in the attorney client relationship. The defendant submits in her most recent application disparaging statements about him and his representation of her. In open court, on November 17, 2010, defendant stated she wished to discharge his attorney and asked for the appointment of counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law section 35(8)(b).

The said counsel is defendant’s third attorney of record. Previously, defendant was represented by pro bono counsel, a New York City law firm. On March 10, 2010, a consent to change attorney was filed and the defendant was substituted as attorney pro se. On May 5, 2010, an attorney was appointed by the court as the attorney for the defendant pursuant to the Judiciary Law on the issues of child custody, visitation and an order of protection. Although not initially disclosed to the court by defendant, this attorney simultaneously represented defendant in Family Court. On August 10, 2010, defendant was again substituted pro se for this attorney on consent. The attorney had moved by order to show cause, dated August 13, 2010, to be relieved. That application was rendered moot based upon the pro se substitution and the fact that defendant already retained private counsel to wit: the counsel unbeknownst to the court assigned attorney. After having discharged the court appointed counsel and hired private counsel, defendant seeks to now have the court appoint her another attorney. The counsel represented the defendant in an all-day temporary custody hearing on October 7, 2010, before this court. The court after the hearing awarded temporary custody of the infant issue to the father. He is the more stable parent, at the present time, for the care of the child. As a result of the hearing the court believes that plaintiff was a victim of domestic violence; on one occasion he sought medical assistance at an emergency room. Apparently, shortly before that hearing, defendant appeared in the Family Court, Queens County, pro se, and obtained an ex parte temporary order of protection against plaintiff. That petition indicated that there were “no prior applications” for an order of protection notwithstanding the present application in this matrimonial action or the two (2) prior Kings County Family Court applications for orders of protection which were withdrawn on the record in open court after consolidation on consent. Upon disclosure to this court of the defendant’s application in Queens County, this court from the bench contacted the Referee from Queens Family Court who indicated she has no knowledge of an existing matrimonial action. This court informed counsel and the parties’ of this on the record in open Court. Upon written application, this court, ex parte, granted consolidation of the Queens Family Court matter and ordered a hearing on November 17, 2010. That hearing was adjourned so the counsel could make the present application to be relieved because of defendant’s alleged actions and alleged failure to cooperate with him. Defendant also brought on two (2) orders to show cause pro se while still being represented by counsel and not informing him of her intent to do so. On November 22, 2010, defendant submitted an application for poor person status and filed a third pro se order to show cause.

Published on:

April 26, 2016

The biological mother (petitioner) Beverly L. surrendered her parental rights of her 2 daughters Kendall and Brooke, and her son Zachary. She signed a Judicial Conditional Surrender reserving the right to visit her children and has done so many times.

The mother filed 2 different orders to show cause to obtain custody of her children due to a failed adoption by the respondent. The mother tells several disturbing stories where both of her daughters were sexually abused by two different men. One child was abused by the adoptive father, the other child was abused by an unrelated third party. The boy was reported bullied in the adoptive home.

Posted in:
Published on:
Published on:

This case calls upon the Appellate Court to consider the validity of a rule that was decided 25 years ago, in the Matter of Alison D. (77 NY2d 651 [1991]). In this case, an unmarried same-sex couple questioned the rights of responsibilities of having a child, in light of the fact that there was no biological connection between one of the parents and the child. This case discussed the rule that with an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological connection to a child is not considered the child’s parent in terms of standing to bring an action for custody or visitation due to the Domestic Relations Law sec. 70, 77 NY 2d 655). The Petitioners in this case ask for custody and visitation of the child. This court agrees that the rule that has been used through the years regarding this issue is no longer workable.

The parties entered into a romantic relationship and moved in with each other. In 2007, the Petition and Respondent registered as partners and later decided to have a child through artificial insemination. In February of 2008, the Respondent became pregnant. The Respondent had a child, and the Petitioner was there to support the Respondent in every way. The next several years were spent raising the child. But in 2012, they unfortunately decided to end their relationship.

In October of 2012, they began an action seeking child support from the Petitioner. The Petitioner denied any liability in the matter, and also countersued for visitation.

Published on:

Slip Op 02376

Gabriella was tried as a person who needed supervision (PINS) and placed on one year’s probation. A juvenile delinquency petition was filed against Gabriella alleging physical abuse by her mother. She appeared in family court based on PINS violations and the court eventually remanded her to a detention facility. Gabriella left the facility. Her probation officer, Flores, tried to obtain a PINS warrant.

In March, the police visited Gabriella’s home to execute a warrant. She admits she did not comply and go quietly. Eventually, despite her protests she was taken into custody.

Published on:

Petitioner was an incarcerated in the New York correctional system and has admitted paternity of a child. He started this proceeding to establish visitation with his child after the mother would allow the child to visit their father in prison. The family court granted the petition, awarding periodic short visits with the child, who was three years old at the time.

The family court noted that the law in New York presumes visitation with a noncustodial parent to be in the child’s best interests. The fact that the parent is incarcerated is not an automatic reason for blocking visitation.

The court determined that the father was involved in the child’s life in a meaningful way prior to him being incarcerated. The father seeks to maintain this relationship. The court has felt that the child was old enough to travel, and would benefit from the relationship. The court also felt that the length of the father’s incarceration would be detrimental to the relationship.

Published on:

The neglect proceeding was heard pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The Respondent has been accused of perpetuating various acts of violence against the children’s mother in front of the children and has been accused of using excessive corporal punishment. R was also accused of being an alcoholic.  R was also prosecuted in criminal court which was dismissed.

The Respondent said that criminal records should not have been used (the arresting officer used them to refresh his memory).

On cross-examination, the officer testified that before attending the neglect proceeding he had reviewed criminal paperwork, the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) and his memo book to refresh his memory.

Published on:

This case calls on the court to assess the continued fairness of a rule discussed originally in a case known as the Matter of Alison D in Virginia (77 NY 2d 651 [1991]/ Where an unmarried couple has a child, and one partner doesn’t have a biological connection to the child. This affects the child’s parent in terms of standing to seek custody and visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law section 70 (77 NY 2d 655). The petitioners seek custody and visitation in the present case. The court agrees that the definition of a parent as established in the older case has now become unfair.

The Petitioner and Respondent were involved in a romantic relationship back in 2006 and subsequently announced their engagement. It was only just a gesture because legally at the time the couple could not get married. Same-sex marriage was not legal in New York, and they did not have the resources to travel out of state.

They decided to have a child together. In 2008, the respondent became pregnant via artificial insemination. The Petitioner was involved throughout the pregnancy. They raised the child jointly as a couple. However, in 2013, their relationship ended.

Published on:

No: GO53597 Fourth Dist. Division Three

This case is an appeal by the mother of a three-year-old child, and the Social Services Administration (SSA). The mother’s petition for a Writ of Mandate from an order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare Institutions hearing pursuant to code section 366.


Published on:

People v. Badalamenti

NY Slip Op 02556

The highest court in New York has held that parents can legally eavesdrop on their children if they believe that it is in their best interests. This ruling by the New York State Supreme Court established an exception to existing wiretapping without consent laws.

Contact Information