New York Family Law Blog

Scheduled on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s late spring docket is a case that many believe could change the way that alimony is awarded in TN, a New York Family Lawyer read recently. The case that is receiving the focus is a divorce case that has been seen a divorced couple embattled in the courts since 2007.

At the time of the couple’s divorce, the appeals court ordered the man to pay $1,250 in alimony each month to his ex-wife of 21 years. At the time of their 2009 divorce, her salary was $72,000 and his was $137,000. Other sources have stated that the type of alimony that was awarded in this case is typically reserved for another situation that includes the woman having sacrificed her career for her family, is over the age of 50, and is unable to find a job that can pay her enough to maintain her current lifestyle.

While the opinions on whether a lifetime alimony award should remain in place varies, the underlying principle behind alimony is to ensure that the remaining family members do not have to needlessly suffer simply because one of the marital partners decides they no longer desire to continue in the relationship. There are also varying opinions as to if someone should be forced to pay alimony for the lifetime of the other partner, or until that person should decide to remarry. As a Nassau County Family Lawyer was also told, this is what the man who is party in the above-mentioned divorce is arguing. Part of his argument is that his ex-wife may never remarry simply because she would want the alimony payments to continue.

On the other side of the issue is the argument for these types of alimony to continue. The woman’s lawyer from the divorce case before the TN Supreme Court states that it was his infidelity that caused the marriage to break up and that she he should continue to pay for that.

The court is due to hear arguments from both side when they take up the case, and will likely consider the ex-wife’s need to continue her lifestyle that she had during the marriage, and the ex-husband’s ability to pay.

Has your spouse or partner betrayed you by being unfaithful? Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help to ease your suffering and get you back on the right track to happiness without the excess baggage of a cheating spouse.

Bonnie Belair and Jarret Clark divorced with Ms. Belair having sole custody of their minor child. This was finalized in 1997. Mr. Clark was given limited visitation rights once he completes the parenting class that was ordered by the court. After this decision by the court, Mary Francis Drew, the child’s paternal grandmother, petitioned the court to get visitation rights. They cited the law that grants grandparent's visitation rights in certain circumstances. By February 1999, Ms. Belair submitted her petition to the Trial Court saying that the statute violates her constitutional right to privacy.

The Trial Court refused to deliver a verdict about the constitutional challenge that was placed by Ms. Belair. They gave temporary visitation rights to Ms. Drew, which was also to be in the same place as agreed in the mediation. What Ms. Belair did was to submit a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari is an order made by a higher court about a case that they have reviewed, said a New York Family Lawyer. Ms. Belair’s petition said that because the Trial Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation law, her right to privacy was violated.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, they cited the case of Beagle vs. Beagle. It was said in that case that the state “may not intrude upon the parents' fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.” They also said that in the same case, the court said that the best interest of the child is placed first even before there is proof of harm. The privacy that is to be expected should be no less than the one experienced while married. The question now is if the court has the right to decide whether to impose visitation rights on a parent who does not want it. The Supreme Court acknowledges that "care custody and management" is a fundamental liberty interest of a parent. The court said as well that the choice which relates to child rearing and education are fundamental rights covered by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The state does not have the right to interfere with these decisions, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and they reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

In any case regarding visitation or child custody, the child should always be put first. Everyone can agree that the well being of the child supersedes any other concern or issue of different parties. This welfare is also protected by law, and they make sure that the law is followed.

If you are a party in a visitation rights case, and you want to make sure your rights as well as the child’s is protected, contact have Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They will provide you with options as to how to be able to see your child or make sure their lives are not disrupted by someone else trying to see them. Whether you have a custody concern, paternity issue or need an order for protection, we will promptly and professionally provide the legal guidance you need.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent's Rights" »

In a case that affects two States, Sharon and Edward Heartfield were part of this not so uncommon situation. The two were divorced by the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Sharon was the one awarded custody of the children. Edward got visitation rights and was ordered to pay 2,025 per month for child support. Once the divorce was finalized, Sharon together with the three children moved to Louisiana and has lived there for about four years.

Three years after moving to Louisiana, Sharon filed a case with the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas to request for the modification of the child support. Edward responded with a cross-action where he asked for more visitation times, reduced amount of child support and to have the case transferred to Hardin County, Texas. The case was transferred to Hardin County, Texas as per request.

After this, Sharon asked the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana to issue a decision that says that the original order by the court for visitation and child support be executed. She filed a motion in the Hardin County court as well, to have them dismiss the action or move it to Orleans Parish. This was denied by the courts of Hardin County and about a month later after a hearing, they issued a modified decision. The new decision reduced the child-support payments to $1,800 per month. The court said this is also dependent on specific visitation rights. A month later, Edward filed affidavits saying that visitation was being denied so he did not pay the child support. This is when he filed for a temporary injunction order to stop Sharon from her claims in the Louisiana Court. He filed it with the States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. Sharon dropped her case connected to the child support but said that the visitation schedule threatened the well-being of her children. The injunction was granted by the Louisiana court.

The Court of Appeals said that this was an error as the Louisiana Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, and that it had abused its discretion in granting the injunction. They said that jurisdiction is continued from Texas so it is kept in Texas. The injunction should not have been granted as the Louisiana Courts has not violated any decision that was made by the Texas Courts. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision according to a New York Family Lawyer.

Cases that involved two or more States, especially with child visitation and child support are a little more complicated. In any State, the first priority is still the welfare of the child. The determination normally goes with the State that issued the initial decision, so there is no conflict.

If you are filing for divorce, or have a custody, visitation issue, or need an order for protection, be sure to contact legal counsel promptly. It is important to ensure that your rights, and the rights of you child are protected.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Louisiana Visitation Issue" »

In a relationship that ended in June 1991, Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. The two never married, mentioned a New York Family Lawyer. Jenifer Troxel and Gary Troxel are Brad’s parents, making them the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Natalie. Even after the separation and since Brad lived with his parents, he had taken his kids at his house over the weekend to visit. In May 1993, Bad had committed suicide, ending his life. After the death of their son, Mr. and Mrs. Troxel still saw their grandchildren regularly. By October 1993, Ms. Granville told them that she wanted to limit their visit to her daughters to just one short visit per month.

It was December 1993 when Mr. and Mrs. Troxel filed a petition to get visitation to their granddaughters. What they asked for was two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks of visitation each summer. Ms. Granville said she was not against them visiting her children, but the length of the visits and how often is the one that she wanted to limit. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said, Ms. Granville wanted the visit to be once a month only and just for the whole day with no overnight visits. The Superior Court issued an order for visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both petitioning grandparents' birthdays.

Ms. Granville, at this time already married to Kelly Wynn, filed an appeal with the court. The Court of Appeals sent the appeal back to the Superior Court. Their decision was that the visits were beneficial to the children, Isabelle and Natalie. They considered the standing of Mr. and Mrs. Troxel as part of a large, central, loving family, in an area that will give the children access to their cousins and music. They said that the children should also spend time with their step father’s six other children with their mother and step father.

About nine months after the remand, Mr. Wynn formally adopted Isabelle and Natalie. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the Superior Court’s decision stating a non-parent does not have the standing in appealing for custody when there is no custody hearing. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer mentioned that the Supreme Court granted the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Troxel for a review. They said that even though they do not agree with the reason of non-parent, in the current situation where there are already two parents in the household and no apparent reason for the court to interfere, the decision is affirmed. In their decision, they cited the fundamental right of a parent in raising their children, which the court cannot infringe on without cause.

The well-being of the child surpasses any other issues of each party in the trial. This interest is protected by law, and they see to it that the rule of law is followed. If the case is regarding custody or visitation rights, the children’s welfare is always the first and most important consideration. Whether you need to file for divorce, have a custody or visitation issue, or need an order for protection, speak with legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure that your rights, and the rights of your children are protected.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent Rights Issue" »

Jason Leigh Owens asked the court for unsupervised visitation with his four-year-old daughter. This was only after multiple once a month supervised visits at family visitation centers. The reason for the supervised visits was that Mr. Owens was convicted and jailed for a third-degree felony for domestic violence. After an evaluation, the court said that Mr. Owens has greatly improved with his control of his emotions, especially his anger. The supervised visitation has already been maximized, mentioned by a New York Family Lawyer. From the records, the court also said, it was in the best interest of the child to move forward and give Mr. Owens shared parental responsibility and frequent unsupervised visits.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the decision, the order was for the first eight months will have unsupervised visits in the city where the child lives. This was to be between ten in the morning to four in the afternoon every second and fourth Sunday of the month. Every third Saturday, he would have a full day and night unsupervised visits. This is from ten in the morning Saturday to four in the afternoon the following Sunday. Mr. Owens did not ask for the overnight visitation.

Kylie C. Doyle, the mother contested this decision. The first was that because the overnight visit was not even asked by Mr. Owens. She also said that the welfare of her child is not going to be protected if the visit is unsupervised. Each party is not contesting that Mr. Owen entitlement as he is not because of the conviction. What the mother is arguing about is the effect to her child and the evidence that supports it would be good for her child to be in it.

The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision and said the lower court has overstepped in its judgment, and they also based their determination in the testimonies provided by expert witnesses who reviewed the situation. Mr. Owens said in his statement that he underwent anger management, parenting and CPR courses, had worked full-time, and had complied with court orders. He had witnesses from the family visitation center who said that his visits had gone smoothly. A New York Visitation Lawyer read the decision of the Court of Appeals where it said Dr. Larson, the court-appointed psychiatric evaluator recommended supervised visits. Angelyn Richards, the child's mental health counselor had the same opinion. The first because in his evaluation will do better watched. Ms. Richards’ reason was because the child’s reactions after the visits were symptomatic and traumatic. They reversed the decision.

The welfare and well-being of a child are always the primary concerns in any determination for visitation, child support and custody. A New York Criminal Lawyer knows that even the initial determination and agreement are crucial for this. Any provision in the agreement and as well as the evaluation of the parents play a big part in how it will be assessed later on. Domestic abuse is something that does not easily go away but can be reversed.

Continue reading "Court Reverses Visitation for Parent with Domestic Violence Issues" »

Michael Reed and Judy Mast were married. While they were married, they had a son, Jason. About four year into the marriage, the two had problems with their marriage and got a divorce. Mrs. Mast and Jason moved to a different location, same State. Mr. Reed moved to a different city for a new business. After a year, more or less, of regular visitation with his son, his visits became infrequent and even his child support had lowered because of difficulties in his business. Mr. Reed and Mrs. Mast had agreed that Jason would stay with his mother primarily, as long as they do not move the child to a different State permanently without a court’s approval. This was done before Mr. Reed moved to a Madison. A year later, the court’s final judgment had included this provision, said a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer.

About five months after the final judgment was the time Mrs. Mast got married to her current husband James Mast. Mr. Reed remarried around three months after. Mr. Mast joined the army and was stationed in North Carolina. He did this because of financial reasons. Mrs. Mast petitioned the court a little more than a year after her marriage to move to North Carolina to be with her husband and new child. She did move to North Carolina even before the decision, but she returned to Florida every other weekend with Jason so that Mr. Reed could have his time with him, which he never missed.

Mr. Reed argued that Mrs. Mast had permanently moved the child out of the State, that the move will hamper his relationship with his son, and he is capable of providing guidance. About eight months after the initial petition, the decision was granted in favor of Mr. Reed, and the primary residence was given to him. According to the records found by a Long Island Visitation Lawyer, this was appealed by Mrs. Mast.

In the determination by the Court of Appeals, they looked at the move of the mother as well as how the move would interfere with the contact Mr. Reed would have with his son. First, the court said that for a military person to be assigned in a different State is not permanent. They maintain their residency in the State which they initially lived in and registered. For Mrs. Mast this showed that she did not permanently move to North Carolina, so the primary residence of her son should still be with her. The second contention as to the hampering of the father’s relationship, they said that for the eight months that the initial case ran, Mrs. Mast was able to make sure Jason was available to his father on the scheduled visits. This is contrary to what Mr. Reed showed when his business got problems. The court reversed the decision and placed the child back with Mrs. Mast.

There are certain agreements that can move a child in the care of one parent to the other. They also know that it is the best interest of the child that should be the primary concern. If this has already been met, then the protection of the rights of each parent is the one to look at and make sure that is done. Contact our office if you need assistance with a custody or visitation concern, or require an order of protection to ensure that your rights, and the rights of your child are protected.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Visitation Issue When Parent Moves Out of State" »

A mother gave birth to her child on March 14, 1991. The mother died in December 1993 of cancer, said a New York Family Lawyer. About two months after her death, a girlfriend moved in with the father and daughter. The girlfriend and father eventually got married in October 1994, she adopted the daughter. By the late quarter of 1997, the couple went through divorce proceedings. This is when the child's biological maternal grandparents, filed a petition with the court for visitation, which was granted by the Trial Court. The mother and father appealed against this decision.

According to the details given by both parties, the grandparents were in good terms with the father before their daughter died. It was also mentioned that they frequently visited with their grandchild. The relationship started to fall apart when the new wife came into the picture. At first, visitation with their granddaughter was reduced and after the adoption it ceased completely.

The grandparents argued with the law that says when one or both parents are deceased then, the grandparents may be given visitation rights. The father and his new wife argued that this violates their rights as parents of the child. The parties tried mediation but were unsuccessful, and the case went to trial.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the court saw what can be viewed as conflict between the privacy of the parents in how they bring up their child and the grandparent’s rights to visit their grandchild, under the law. The law states that the court should not infringe on the upbringing of a child in an intact family. They said that in this case where divorce proceedings were going, the best interest of the child is going to be the main basis. The court said that in this case having grandparents around gives a child the sense of family identity. In situations wherein there is a death in a child’s family or divorce of their parents, the grandparents provide the stability that a child needs. It is not as well a case where in the visits will just suddenly be granted as the grandparents were visiting the granddaughter previously when her birth mother was alive and even a few months after her death. Although the granddaughter now lives with the new mother, the court still granted limited visitation rights to the grandparents.

There are times and cases where a court or the state can determine if a child needs the support of her grandparents. The well being of the child supersedes any other concern or issue of different parties. This is why the court will grant visitation to a party if they see that child need it in his or her current situation.

Divorce cases can be complicated, and emotionally draining, particularly when this is a child invovled. There is often overlap between family law and criminal law. A New York Criminal Lawyer can tell you that because of the frequent overlap between the two areas of law, the court system has created special court rooms that hold will hear both the criminal and family law aspects of a divorce case. This was done to streamline the process and avoid overlapping of issues.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent's Rights Issue" »

Two female partners, jointly entered into a sperm donation agreement with the sperm donor. In the agreement, both were described as "recipient," "mother" and "co-parent" from what a New York Family Lawyer found out. The agreement had removed all the rights of the sperm donor with the rearing of the child and that the co-parents will be the one responsible for any decision regarding the child. The agreement also had a provision that if in case, the mother of any of the child or children can no longer take care of them because she was deceased or legally disabled, it is in the child’s best interest to be with the co-parent.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that in the agreement, the mother is the one who conceives and gives birth to the child. The recipient is the one who receives the sperm. The co-parent is the one who agreed to be the parent of the child but did not give birth to them. The two women were to be "psychological parents" to any child or children whom they may have.

One gave birth to a child as a result of the sperm donation. The two signed another agreement, which said that it was a joint decision to conceive. They agreed to both share in the financial responsibility of raising the child as well as equally share in providing for the child until it reaches the age of maturity. Even if one was not a natural parent, she has assumed the role as one. She was part of the pre-natal phases and plans to be part of the child’s life as a parent. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer read that even if they no longer live together, the agreement as to how to take care of the child will remain intact. The gave each other authority to make decisions regarding the child's medical and dental health.

A second child was born to another sperm donation agreement, and with this child aside from the provisions that were the same with the elder child, the non-maternal partner was given all the authority with the second child’s medical and dental health. They had a domestic partnership affidavit executed so the children will be covered by the non-maternal partner's health insurance. A Nassau County Order for Protection Lawyer said the two separated in May 2004 and the last time the non-maternal partner was able to speak with the children was June 3, 2004 over the phone. The non-maternal parent sued the other for breach of contract, but the court said she cannot have visitation as she is not a parent. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision as the law does not support de-facto parents’ rights.

It does not matter if the child was created naturally or not the parents are still the ones who are to decide for them. The child’s best interest is the main concern for any child visitation case. The parents are deemed to be the primary people responsible for them, and the court is not to interfere if there is no significant reason to think that a child may be harmed.

Continue reading "Court Decides Parental Rights for Same Sex Couple" »

A mother had filed an appeal against an order that disallows her to move to Texas with her two children. The mother had two sons with the father. They were born three years apart, said a New York Family Lawyer. Almost five years after the youngest was born, the parents divoced. In the final judgment for the dissolution of marriage, the court had them share parental responsibility. The custody of the children was given to the mother, with the father getting liberal visitation. The decision specifically said that the visitation is at least one night in a week plus every other weekend. A restriction on the relocation of the mother and the children was not provided in the decision.

The mother and her new husband lives in Texas with his son. They met when he was assigned in their area for an extended period. About a year and three months after the dissolution of the marriage was finalized, the mother filed a petition to change the visitation provisions because she will be marrying her new husband, and they would be moving to Texas. The father filed a case with the court asking for an injunctive relief. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said this was to prevent the mother from moving the children to Texas. It was granted by the court.

A final hearing was done in November 2004 where the new husband, the mother and the father testified. The new husband said he was a right-of-way agent for the oil and gas industry. According to him, he earns about $70,000 to $90,000 per year, his line of work though is not open in the current State. The mother's testimony mentioned the benefits of moving the children to the smaller community of Ponder, Texas. She said her new husband has a new 3000-square-foot home and that there was a public school nearby. According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, the mother testified she was currently earning $58,000 per year, and can be promoted in her current employment. Once they move, she planned to be a stay at home mother, but if necessary, she could find a comparable employment in Texas. Although she does not have family in Texas, they are just two and a half hours away in Oklahoma. The father said he works nights, from eleven in the evening to half past seven in the morning. According to him, if he missed any scheduled visitation, it was because of work. Their normal activity of boating, fishing, bowling and other recreational stuff often include the children’s paternal grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins.

A Nassau County Order of Protection Lawyer said that the court ruled the proposed visitation schedule to be adequate, but they did not see the move as for the best interest of the children. The Trial Court denied the mother’s motion. The mother appealed against the decision. The review of the Court of Appeals said, the mother was able to show improvement on her life as well as her husband’s, but was not able to prove the relocation to be beneficial to the children. From what the law says, the priority is the best interest of the children.

It is not always that the court prevents a parent from moving out State with their children. If they are able to prove it is advantageous to the children, the request will be granted. The child’s welfare is always the priority.

Continue reading "Court Denies Proposed Relocation of Parent" »

A mother filed an appeal to dissolve her marriage from her husband. She asked the Court to approve her moving with their daughter, to Louisiana, according to a New York Family Lawyer. She asked the court for the father and her for shared parental responsibility. In her petition, she asked for the court to give reasonable visitation to the father. She did not ask for the father to be ordered to attend parenting classes, but the Trial Court erroneously filed an emergency order to grant the mother temporary primary residential custody. The court also allowed her to move the child to a different State.

The mother and child moved to Louisiana with the granting of the court order, because of this, the father filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction to prevent the removal of a child and or return of the child to jurisdiction. He filed another motion to rush the appeal against the temporary primary residential custody and order granting the moving of the child to another State. A Westchester County Visitation Lawyer said, the mother’s motion was granted without the court giving the father to present his side and be heard. Aside from this, there was a two-month delay in the evidentiary hearing. After the evidentiary hearing was when the Trial Court granted the petition of the mother and ordered the father to take a thirty-six-week parenting course. Only after he finishes will the parental responsibility issue be reviewed. The father appealed against the decision.

The court reviewed three issues in the case. The first was if the mother presented enough evidence for the Trial Court to give her sole parental responsibility. The Court of Appeals said she was able to. Determine that she was able to do so. The second was about the complete control given to the mother for the visitation. Generally, the court said that this was an error, but given the facts of the case, they said it was not improper.

The last issue the Court of Appeals addressed was the parenting course required that he attend. He said that mother did not ask for it, so he did not know that the court might impose that lengthy course. The court said, typically the court cannot go outside of what was petitioned, but in cases for visitation, the welfare of the child is the one the main priority. Having a parent attend a parenting course is available to judges to foster the best interest of a child. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case.

Each parent has a right to have a meaningful relationship with his or her child according to a New York Family Lawyer. There are instances that the court may limit visitation because of the situation, but they cannot deprive unless the child may be harmed or threatened. They can make parents attend parenting classes to make sure the best interest of the child is prioritized.

Divorce cases are emotionally difficult, particularly when there is a child in the cross fire. If you are involved in a divorce, or require an order for protection, or you have a custody or visitation issue, it is importan to consult with skilled legal counsel promptly. This will ensure that your rights, and the rights of your child are protected throughout the legal process.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Out of State Visitation Issues" »

Three months into a couple's brief marriage, they were separated and by the fifth month, wife filed for the dissolution of the marriage. When she filed the petition, she also said that she is with child. In her statement she testified that it was husband's and her child, said a New York Family Lawyer. The husband denied being the father of the child at first, but after the child was born, the two had agreed on a marital settlement agreement. The husband agreed pay $119.14 per month for child support until the child is considered as an adult. The agreement also stated that he should pay for the medical expenses during pregnancy that was not covered by insurance. The wife was to have sole custody of the child, and she could change the surname. There was no mention of visitation rights.

About a year and a half after the agreement, a judgment of dissolution was taken by the court, basing it on the agreement of the two parties. The requirements and terms of the child support were repeated. Mr. McAlister asked his lawyer about the visitation rights and was given the answer he should not worry as he would have them. According to the transcript a Sufflok County Visitation Lawyer read, Mr. McAlister tried seeing the child at the wife's residence after the baby was born but was turned away by the wife. He tried again a few months later but still the same thing.

The husband filed for a Supplemental Petition for Modification. This was to give him visitation rights to his child. The court denied his motion, but he appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeals said in their deliberation that a parent has a natural right to a significant relationship with their child. The only limit is how they act in front of their child, which should not negatively affect the child’s moral or welfare. The court also stated that the courts can grant sole custody with or without provisions for visitation rights of the other parent. In this case though, the Court of Appeals said that it was not even mentioned so there was no determination if the husband should have visitation rights or not. A Suffolk County Custody Lawyer read that they remanded the case back as to give the chance to the father to present his case with the best interest of the child for him to have the said rights.

The well-being of the child surpasses any other issues of each party in the trial. The law and the courts protect the interest of a child, whether it is from the parents or other family member. They see to it the interest of the child is the first thing considered.

There is little argument that a divorce case can be emotionally and financially draining. These cases are particularly stressful when there are children involved. Often in the heat of the moment, couples find themselves acting in ways that they normally would not. This can bring rise to criminal offenses, such as assault and domestic violence. In this instance, it is imperative that the parties seek the advice and guidance of a New York Criminal Lawyer for assistance and to ensure that the parties rights, and those of their child are protected at all times. Interestingly, because these cases are often complex, many courts have combined both family law and criminal law court rooms to better serve the needs of families going through divorce. This was done to clarify the issues and streamline the process.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Child Visitation Matter" »

A couple got married and had one child. Unfortunately, the father died, and the paternal grandparents were granted visitation rights in the final judgment of dissolution. December of the same year, in a hearing that was rescheduled, with the mother properly notified, the court gave the paternal grandparents a right to take their visitation at the mother's current address. The mother did not appear in court for this, according to a New York Family Lawyer. The paternal grandparents, were not able to find the mother at the child in the address. January of the following year, the grandparents filed a motion for contempt with the court against the mother. The hearing was scheduled for March of that year.

The maternal grandparents filed a petition with a different county court for the adoption of their grandchild. This was filed four days before the scheduled hearing for contempt in the original court. From what a Nassau County Family Lawyer found out, the maternal grandparents presented a signed consent from the mother. The mother did not appear in the rescheduled hearing for contempt, so a warrant of arrest was issued by the court. The following month, the mother contact the paternal grandparents. They agreed to a visitation schedule so the arrest warrant was withdrawn. The hearing was set for May 26 and the mother said the visitation could start in July.

At the hearing in May 26, reported a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, all parties attended and the court granted the request of the mother to have the visitation start in July. The court was not aware of the adoption petition in the second court. The following day, the second court heard the petition for adoption, with them unaware as well of the hearing in the original court the day before. It was in June that the paternal grandparents were notified of the adoption. They filed another contempt motion and a petition to restrict the removal of the minor child from their county. The adoption petition was vacated, as well by the court. The motion of the paternal grandparents was granted.

The maternal grandparents and the mother appealed for a review of the decision. The Court of Appeals agreed with them that the child’s movement should not be restricted solely to facilitate visitation, but they said additional facts in the situation must be considered. The court said the mother moving the child and not saying where the child is for three years showed bad faith. This decision was not solely for the visitation but to make sure the process of the court is followed. The lack of bond in the decision was as well reasonable because the mother has shown she can be a flight risk. The adoption of the child being valid at the time of the injunction, the Court of Appeals said no because the judge had vacated it. The decision was affirmed.

The best interest of the child id the first consideration of the courts when determining visitation. The jurisdiction of the courts also follows a rule to prevent a parent from seeking a more favorable decision somewhere else. There are laws, which cover visitation and a good lawyer knows it has to be followed and reviewed.

There is little argument that a divorce proceeding is difficult, and emotionally charged, particularly when there are children involved. During the course of the proceedings, you may find that an order for protection is required, or that a paternity, or guardianship issue arises. To ensure that you and your child's rights are protected, be sure to seek out skilled legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure the best possible result for your case.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent Adoption Case" »