New York Family Law Blog

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.

The Mother is 42 years old and works out of the home as an insurance agent for her father's insurance company. She lives with her husband and her parents in her parent's home. Prior to her remarriage, she always provided health insurance coverage for the children. Pursuant to the Judgment, Father is required to contribute 50% toward any unreimbursed medical and/or dental expenses. According to Mother, Father contributes to dental expenses from time to time.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the Mother remarried to a man who has a severely autistic and mentally retarded teenage son who spends significant time with Respondent Mother and the children at their Mother's home.

The current husband works full time as a school bus driver for special education children. Like Mother, he also has medical insurance and other benefits as part of his employment. The Stepfather is currently providing the subject children with medical and dental coverage. Mother claims to have a massive support system of friends and family.

The relationship between the Mother and her daughter has been strained since the she remarried. The daughter has had incidents with Mother and her maternal grandmother where she is alleged to have spoken disrespectfully to them or otherwise not followed the rules of the home.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that the record revealed that in June 2007, Family Court entered an Order against Father for child support arrears. Mother filed an enforcement petition against Father for nonpayment of that Order. Father paid the arrears during the course of the trial. Father admits that he is required to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of his children. Father further admits that he allowed his life insurance policy to lapse several years ago. Father is further required to contribute to a College plan per year, per child. Father admits he has not contributed to the plan for several years. Father admits he decided to put the money he is required to save for college tuition into real estate and his home. Father admits he owns several vehicles and pays insure these vehicles. On the subject of why the parties divorced, the Father said that during the marriage Mother withdrew from him which resulted in his having affairs.

On January 6, 2005, while the divorce proceeding was pending, Mother filed a Family Offense Petition against the Father. A temporary order of protection was issued against Father in which Father was ordered to stay away from Mother except for court ordered visitation contact. That same day Father filed a Family Offense Petition against Mother. No Temporary Order was issued on that Petition. Days later, the Father filed a Supplemental Family Offense Petition against Mother on behalf of himself and the children. No Temporary Protection Order was issued on that Petition.

On March 21, 2005, after a contested trial where both parties were represented by counsel, a finding of Aggravated Harassment was made against Father and a five year Final Protection Order was issued in favor of the Mother against Father. Based on the Court's finding, Father was ordered to attend anger management as a condition of the Final Protection Order. A finding of Harassment was entered against Mother. A one year limited Final Protection Order was issued against Mother on behalf of Father. A three year limited Final Protection Order was issued against Mother on behalf of the subject children with the added conditions that Mother not use corporal punishment on the children and that she attends anger management. No evidence was submitted at this custody trial as to whether either parent ever complied with Family Court's Order that they each attend anger management.

According to a Queens Family Lawyer, on 2005, an appeal was filed which was dismissed. On, the Father filed a Violation Petition against Mother. That same year, Father filed another Violation Petition against Mother which was dismissed for failure to appear for trial. Father filed another Violation Petition against Mother on 2007. This Petition was joined for trial with Father's 2006 Violation Petition. After trial on 2007, all petitions brought by Father against Mother were dismissed and Father was enjoined by Family Court from filing any further petitions against Mother.

The Father admits that, in December 2006, Mother invited him to her house to discuss their daughter’s behavior. At that time Mother told Father their daughter’s behavior was out of control. While Father claims he could not now recall the details of that meeting, Mother credibly testified that Father instructed their daughter at that time to obey Mother and the rules in her home. Father claims that Mother admitted to him that she smacked their daughter in the face. Notwithstanding the Mother's alleged admission in that regard, the Father left their daughter in the Mother's care that same evening.

Approximately a week later, Father brought her daughter to a local police precinct to report an incident of domestic violence by Mother. The Father could not recall the details of this particular report made against Mother and no further evidence was elicited on this subject at trial. Father did acknowledge that he has called the police a number of times on Mother and has filed several incident reports against her. On at least one occasion, he brought the children to the police precinct with him. Some of these reports had to do with missed visits.

In total, since 2004, Father filed nineteen petitions against Mother in Family Court, including five petitions to modify child support. Mother has filed twelve petitions against Father in Family Court including several for enforcement of child support. The constant litigation between the parents has resulted in multiple trials in multiple courts, multiple investigations by the Administration for Children's Services (ACS), multiple lawyers, and multiple forensic evaluations, all of which have caused the subject children to be interviewed on a myriad of occasions by a number of professionals.

Over years of bitter litigation and days of trial, each party has recounted to this Court a litany of incidences that have occurred between them. Some of these instances may be best described as petty with each parent bearing a share of the responsibility such as Father putting his daughter on a motorcycle after he found out she rode a quad with Stepfather, Mother changing her daughter’s dental appointment to occur on a day Father had visitation and Father switching it back to a day Mother could take her. Rather than dignify these incidences, the Court discusses in this opinion only those significant events which weighed most heavily in this Court's decision to grant sole child custody to Mother.

In this case, both parties agree that the current joint custody arrangement set forth in the Judgment is not working given the deteriorating relationship between them. After considering the evidence in this case including the in camera examinations, and for the detailed reasons set forth below, this Court finds that, while Mother has clearly made her own errors in parenting, on balance, she is more fit than Father to serve as the sole legal custodian of the subject children.

During his lengthy testimony before this Court, Father was not credible on all of the events critical to this Court's decision. For example, his explanation as to how marijuana wound up in his daughter’s lunch box when he was undeniably the sole guardian of that young child at that time was particularly preposterous. He has reported Mother to ACS approximately nine times which, among other consequences, subjected the children to numerous interviews. On one occasion, Father alleged Mother gave their son a dangerous instrument which, in fact, was a wooden souvenir knife from Mother's honeymoon vacation. The fact that Father called ACS on Mother without seeing the knife, or asking Mother about it, suggests that he has little appreciation of the adverse effects these investigations have on the subject children and their relationship with Mother.

Father's interference in the children's relationship with Stepfather, which ranges from punishing their son for time spent with Stepfather to rewarding the children for clandestinely reporting negative incidences that occur in Mother's home, is another major area of concern to this Court. He has encouraged his daughter to document in books incidences involving Mother and Stepfather which he incredibly claims was to further her therapy. Rather than helping the children develop strategies to deal with their mother's remarriage, Father presents as ready to capitalize on any mistake or misstep by Mother in her parenting of the children. This is particularly destructive to their daughter whose behavior suggests that she is still struggling with the effects of this divorce and the remarriage of her mother.

Indeed, after many days of trial testimony, this Court has serious concerns about Father's parenting and his ability to place the children's interests before his own needs. His decision making with respect to the securing of mental health treatment for the children is extremely troubling. Father fired two of the children's therapists, and forbid the doctor from working with the children. Although afforded ample opportunity to do so, Father was unable to explain to this Court why he would deprive the children of mental health services given that many of the children's emotional issues stem from the toxic relationship between him and their mother.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine what legal actions to pursue. The team recognizes the circumstances you are in and will work hard to patch things for you. Call for a free consultation and speak with a lawyer from our office.

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.

The Petitioner asserts that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the events alleged in the initial petition, since all the allegations therein occurred in the State of Virginia. He correctly concedes that the Family Court has jurisdiction concerning specified acts that the Family and Criminal Courts of the State of New York share. However, he mistakenly relies only on the Criminal Procedure Law which provides that the state can entertain jurisdiction over on conduct that has occurred with the state.

In relevant part, the family court and criminal courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning acts which would constitute disorderly conduct between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or in relevant part, states that proceedings under the article may be originated in the county in which the act or acts referred to in the petition allegedly occurred or in which the family or household resides or in which any party resides.
The initial petition alleged that the petitioner, and the child, resided in Nassau County at the time of its filing. The petition further indicated that they left Virginia due to incidents of violence. Accordingly, this court properly exercised its jurisdiction.

As to the issue of custody in relevant part states that upon the filing of a petition or counter-claim under this article, the court for good cause shown, may issue a temporary protection order, which may contain any provision authorized on its making provided that the court shall make a determination, and the court shall state such determination in a written decision or on the record, whether to impose a condition pursuant to this subdivision, provided further, however that the failure to make such determination shall not affect the validity of such order.

In relevant part, the protection order shall set forth reasonable conditions of behavior to be observed for a period not in excess of two years. A Queens Family Lawyer said that the court may also award custody of the child, during the term of the protection order to either parent. The Summons served upon the respondent contained notice where the respondent has been served with this summons and petition and does not appear, the Family Court may proceed to a hearing with respect to issuance or enforcement of the order.

It can be very difficult to prove an argument in court but if Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its legal team on your side, things can get easier. Our Attorneys can provide you with legal advice.

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.

A law guardian assigned on November 2002 to represent the children reported an extensive history of violence at home. Based upon this information, a New York Custody Lawyer said the court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction and directed the Administration for Children's Services to interview both parents and the children.

In a forensic report submitted to the Dominican District Court, the evaluator—who had interviewed only the father, as the mother was not in the country—concluded that he should have custody as the mother is both physically and emotionally absent, and that the other family ties, according to the father, are not the most adequate for the children's emotional or intellectual development. In this case, the father figure would be of vital importance and suggest beginning individual and family therapy to address some of the previously reported issues.
In the midst of the Dominican judicial proceeding, the mother temporarily ceded custody of their sons to the father, in a document known as a friendly agreement, signed before the law guardian. The custody dispute thus came to a halt.

In 2002, the father reactivated the Dominican custody proceeding. In his request for a hearing he alleged that the amicable agreement between the parties is not being adhered to. The nature of the violation that prompted the father's action was not specified. By that time, however, the mother apparently lived in the United States and had regular, though intermittent, contact with the boys.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the proof of service by mail to an address not specified in the part of the Dominican court record was submitted to the Dominican court. The mother did not appear for the custody proceeding. In a decision the District Court found respondent in default for nonappearance and awarded full custody to the petitioner. Noting that the children had now been with their father for over a year, the court declined to move them again, citing the need for stability and security in the future. The law guardian in the proceeding took the position that custody should be awarded to the father, noting that the mother ceded custody of said children by means of an amicable agreement and urged adherence to that agreement.

The mother, who asserts that she learned of the renewed custody proceeding only when she appeared in the Dominican Republic for a visit with the children, filed an appeal and inquiry was held in that court. In a decision, the Appellate Court affirmed the grant of custody to the father.
Two weeks after the Dominican appellate decision, the father was arrested for threatening to kill the mother. He asserted to the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), which interviews criminal defendants prior to arraignment for the purpose of advising the court on bail, that he had been self-employed full time as an entrepreneur in the Bronx for the past two years. He gave his address in New York. He represented that he had lived alone at that address during the prior year. He gave a different New York address to the arresting officer. At the arraignment, a full protection order was issued in favor of the mother. Based in part on the father's representations of community ties, he was released on his own recognizance and remains at liberty.

Almost immediately upon release, the father brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Bronx County Family Court alleging that the mother removed the children from the Dominican Republic in contravention of the final order of custody issued by the Family Court and affirmed on appeal. A law guardian was assigned to represent the children, and the matter was made returnable for the following day, in the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court, where the criminal matter was also now pending.

In response to the writ of habeas corpus, a Queens Family Lawyer said the mother appeared in the IDV Court with the children. Given the allegations of violence at home and the lack of official, translated court documents from the Dominican proceeding, the children were allowed to remain with their mother pending further inquiry.
The mother filed a petition for custody with Bronx County Family Court. In that petition she alleged that, after she fled without the children to the United States to escape violence at home, the petitioner took their children from her mother's home without her permission and obtained a default order of custody from a court in the Dominican Republic. She also filed a family offense petition alleging again that the father had threatened her life the day after he filed the writ of habeas corpus and that he had displayed a gun, threatening to shoot her and the children.
The parties again appeared in Court and the law guardian had now interviewed the children, and reported an extensive history of violence in the family. The court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction of the proceedings and stayed enforcement of the Dominican custody decree. The children were again allowed to remain with the mother.

In a report to the court, a child protective services worker recounted a history of severe violence during the parties' marriage in the Dominican Republic. The mother had medical records corroborating her claim of injuries at the hands of the father, and stated that the Dominican court had issued a protection order in her favor.

The Dominican court placed no weight on the violence in the family, awarding full custody to the father despite the existence of protection order. Moreover, this court now has pending before it a domestic violence criminal matter in which the father twice allegedly threatened to kill the mother, and a family offense petition in which the mother alleges additional death threats against her and the children—in violation of the court's criminal court protection order—as well as menacing with a gun. Certainly enough information has been presented to the court to warrant consideration of the exemption.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine what legal actions to pursue. The team recognizes the circumstances you are in and will work hard to patch things for you. Call for a free consultation and speak with a member of our legal team today.

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.

The father had filed for a petition to appeal his case regarding the no contact policy imposed by the court. The father also challenged the authority of the court on this matter. The court of appeals denied the petition of the father and affirmed the decision of the family court.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that according to the findings of the appeals court, the family court had authority to issue protection orders for the children since they no expiry date. The law states that the family court can issue protection orders for a specified period. There was no provision that limited this particular statement of law.

The appeals court cited previous cases for its decision to deny the father’s appeal. Upon further review of the law, other kinds of child protection proceedings have a limited period and may sometimes extend the hearings. The provisions that allow these instances ensure that the courts have sufficient time to review the extension request. It has been noted by the court that protection order may not exclude one of the parents to have custody of their children. This type of situation is the same as issuing a placement order for the children, thus, the period for review should be the same. This particular provision is stated in the amended family law. After the amendments have been made, the courts still continue to order protection orders against members of the family that have a period that runs until the age of majority.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that the family court awarded the children to the mother as stated in the dispositional order. The custody order of the children had no expiry date. It has been noted by the court that the order did not contain the usual terms for treatment of some kind. It also contained no chance of returning the children to the father sometime in the future. The orders of protection also did not include a condition that will give the father the opportunity to file for a modification.

The court has determined that the dispositional order issued by the family court should not go hand in hand with a protection order with no expiry date. The family court has to provide an expiration date for the protection orders. The court must also review the condition of the children periodically.

If you know someone who needs a family lawyer, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action. The legal services of our team can help you prepare for any child custody and family court case.

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.

In order for the court to decide on the matter, a review of the background of the parties involved will put things in perspective. The mother of the child and the adoptive father had one child during their marriage. The couple decided to separate and filed an agreement with the Supreme Court. During this time of separation, the mother had sexual relations with the natural father. However, the mother and the adoptive father made attempts to reconcile. It was during this time that the mother became pregnant with the child disputed for custody.

According to a Nassau County Family Court Lawyer, the reconciliation attempt between the adoptive father and the mother did not work out. The mother decided to file for a divorce on the grounds of maltreatment. The adoptive father did not challenge the claims made by the mother and admitted to his faults. The divorce was then granted between the two of them.
It was noted by the court that although the mother informed both of the men in her life that she was pregnant before the divorce became final, neither of the two decisions made by the court made any mention of her pregnancy. However, only the joint custody of the son was included in both orders.

When the baby girl was born, both the natural father and the adoptive father came to hospital. The mother had filed an application to receive benefits from a women’s program. She named the natural father as the other parent of the baby. According to the natural father, the adoptive father did not want his name on the child’s birth certificate unless he was sure that he was really the father. In order to resolve the question of paternity, the mother, the baby and the natural father were subjected to DNA testing. The results have proven the paternity of the natural father.

When the baby girl turned a year old, the natural father continued to enjoy his regular visits but a disagreement with the mother led to the filing of a family court petition. The mother filed for an order of protection.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that while the petition was still pending, the mother had reconciled with the adoptive father and her former husband. The two of them have been living together along with their son and the baby girl. The reconciliation has led the natural father and the adoptive father to fight for parental rights over the baby girl.
The court has arrived at a judgment based on the provisions of family law. Despite the consent of the mother to award parental rights over to her husband, the law states that one parent does not have the right to terminate the rights of another parent. The court has decided to deny the petition of the adoptive father to formally adopt the baby girl. The natural father retains paternal rights while the family court will have to consider the frequency and extent of visitation rights to be awarded to him.

If you know someone who needs an expert New York Family Lawyer, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action. The legal services of a New York Family Attorney can help you prepare for any child custody and family court case.
A New York Family Attorney is always ready to help you and your family. If you are in need of a New York Family Lawyer, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have offices located in the metropolitan area. Inquire now for an expert legal consultation.

LisaRaye McCoy-Misick and her ex-husband Michael Eugene Misick are surrounded by all kinds of stories and lies but the separation is real.

There are all kinds of reports on the Internet and in various publications of misconduct and infidelity in their marriage of 24 months but now, McCoy-Misick vows that the truth of the whole affair will surface.

According to a representative, she admitted that indeed their is a separation of she and her husband.

If you are embroiled in an action which will eventually lead to a divorce, it is in your best interest to have a New York Custody Lawyer in your corner. Custody issues as well as visitation rights are routinely in dispute. in order to reach a workable solution for you, an expert attorney will fight for you in a professional way. He will deal with all aspects of the case including the need for an order of protection if abuse of neglect of your children is charged.

There was an incident at the couple's home which resulted in a confrontation between the two and some injuries and police involvement. An investigation is ongoing.

Continue reading " LisaRaye McCoy Misick: Marriage Ending-If Yours is Ending, Consult a New York Family Attorney " »

In this past year’s elections it was obvious to Ohio Republicans that the families of their state agreed with their promise to eliminate estate or “death taxes,” reported a New York Custody Lawyer.

The State holds a deficit currently of more than $8 billion. This tax cut promises to create more jobs, enhance consumer confidence and to encourage elderly citizens to maintain local residence.

“Our wealthier, older citizens change their legal residence to their property in Florida to avoid having their survivors pay estate taxes when they die,” said a local republican.

“If we keep them here as legal citizens year round, they will pay more income tax,” he added.
The state’s current governor said he believes the state’s collection of income taxes in its local municipalities will offset the loss in revenue that will come with the loss of the estate tax.
“That’s what local families wanted,” he said, “more choice in local government.”

A Nassau Family Lawyer said their local officials expressed worry that losing this income might hurt the cities, said a New York Family Lawyer, and explained that the city had been using these funds from the estate taxes for building fire stations, police stations, repairing roads, purchasing land and building things like museums and parks.

“It’s a double whammy,” one trustee said. “I don’t want to ring the fire bell too soon, but we simply cannot make up a shortfall if we lose that plus the local government funds.”
Most economists, estate planning and family attorneys argue the elimination of the estate tax will more than likely stimulate things positively and lead to economic growth.

“It should not come as a surprise that Ohioans are changing their residency to avoid the estate tax,” a New York Estate Planning Lawyer added.

A study by the Connecticut Department of Revenue recently concluded that 26 states without an estate tax introduced twice as many new jobs and their economies grew nearly 50 percent more from 2004-2007 than the 24 states with estate taxes.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that in the end, most agree that it varies from city to city whether or not the loss of revenue from estate tax will negatively or positively impact their economic growth or state of affairs. Some of the cities clearly depend on the revenue for road repair and other parts of their annual maintenance and some don’t depend on the revenue or even include it in their budget.

The governor says he hopes and believes that the increase in local income taxes they will receive from this change will be enough to offset the loss. Changes in local laws regarding estate taxes will absolutely affect you and your family. A New York Family Lawyer can help you and your loved ones stay informed in these areas.

Reality television stars Jon and Kate Gosselin have been going through a very public divorce on TLC’s hit how “Jon and Kate plus 8." While the divorce has not been finalized yet, a temporary custody order has been issued by a family court judge. It has been agreed by both parties, and their Custody Lawyers, the parents will take turns having the children for an entire week straight. During that time, the non-custodial parent will leave the home and have no contact with the children or the home.

According to a New York Custody Lawyer, recently, during one of Jon’s weeks with the children, Kate violated the custody agreement by showing up at the home and demanding to be let in. Her reasoning was that she did not approve of the sitter Jon was using for the children. It was not in the Gosselin’s custody agreement that the custodial parent had to have their babysitters approved by the non custodial parent. When Jon refused to let her into the home, she called the police. The police arrived and told them this is something that will have to be dealt with in a Family Court.

If you are in New York and are having problems arranging a custody agreement, or if one of the parties in your agreement is having a hard time sticking to their schedule, you will need a New York Family Lawyer. The legal team at Stephen Bilkis & Associates has been helping families come to a custody and visitation arrangements for more than a decade. We have offices located in Nassau and Suffolk County, as well as in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens. We offer a free consultation at 1-800-NYNY-LAW (1-800-696-9529). Call us today to take advantage of this free opportunity and speak to a lawyer about your situation.

The health and welfare of their five children are the main concerns for Nicole and Eddie Murphy who are splitting up and headed for a divorce.

Eddie has had some strange encounters which made headlines and have caused problems in the marriage. Nicole will be seeking custody of the children and financial aid in the complaint filed by her attorney.

The comedian was halted by police with a hooker in the car but Eddie claimed that he was just giving the passenger a ride and no charges were made.

It is of the utmost importance to have New York Family Lawyer representing you if you are in the middle of a family dispute which causes separation on the way to divorce. Many of your rights e.g., visitation, joint custody and full custody are bound to be a factor. You will end up in a far better place if you hire a proficient attorney act on your behalf. If no child abuse and neglect are involved, an order of protection does is not necessary.

The 15 year marriage will come to an end as Murphy continues to appear in films such as 'Shrek 3', in which he is the voice of Donkey.

Continue reading " Eddie Murphy's wife filed for Divorce " »

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.

The Court scheduled the second violation petition for hearing. A Queens Family Lawyer said the second violation petition alleged that the ex-husband violated the temporary order of protection when he called his son at his ex-wife’s apartment on October 13, 14 and 23, 2003. The Family Court scheduled the inquest for February 2, 2004. Again, the ex-husband failed to appear and the Family Court reinstated its finding of willful violation of the temporary order of protection. The Family Court also resolved and denied three family offense petitions that the ex-husband filed against his wife. So the Family Court issued an order of protection.

The Family Court proceeded to hear testimony of the ex-wife on the violation petitions. The wife testified that the phone in her apartment rang in the morning of October 11, 2003 and her young son picked it up. The ex-wife, her mother and father all picked up extensions of the phone and they all heard her ex-husband tell their son that he was coming to get him. He called again at 7:30 p.m. on the same night and he told his child and addressed his ex-wife, her mother and her father who had all picked up extensions that he was going to get his son and that he was going to burn down the house and kill them. He called 25 more times after that until 9:00 p.m. The ex-wife called the police and reported the harassment. The next day, the police called and told her that they had arrested her ex-husband.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said his arrest was ordered by the Bronx Criminal Court where he was apparently charged with criminal contempt for a violation of the three-year order of protection issued by the Bronx County Criminal Court itself. This criminal proceeding was for the violation of the Criminal Court’s own Order of Protection: he was not charged with criminal contempt for violating the Family Court Order of Protection. He was also charged with two counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree for repeatedly calling his ex-wife on October 11, 2003.

Thereafter, on March 29, 2003 the Family Court found that the ex-husband had indeed willfully violated the Family Court’s Order of Protection and was found in contempt of the Family Court. He was imprisoned for 6 months, serving two consecutive sentences of three months each.
After his release from prison, he went back to the Family Court and moved that the Family Court vacate his default in the neglect proceedings. And then he moved in the Criminal Court for the dismissal of the charges on the ground that the criminal contempt and the aggravated harassment prosecutions violated his right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution against double jeopardy.

The Family Court denied the ex-husband’s motion to vacate order declaring him in default in the neglect proceedings. Later, the People moved to dismiss the criminal contempt charge and so the only remaining charges are the two charges for aggravated harassment. It is this issue that is before the Supreme Court on pure question of law.

The Court found that the civil contempt proceeding before the Family Court, although punitive in nature and can then be counted as a first prosecution will not bar the ex-husband’s prosecution for aggravated harassment. There can be no double jeopardy here because the elements of civil contempt and aggravated harassment are not the same.

In civil contempt the elements are: that there was an order of protection issued, the ex-husband knew of the order of protection, and yet he still violated it. In aggravated harassment, the elements are: that the ex-husband called his child and ex-wife without any legitimate purpose of communicating with them but instead, with those phone calls, threatened, annoyed, alarmed and harassed them.

Even if the husband were prosecuted for both contempt and aggravated harassment for the same phone calls he made on October 11, 2003, there can be no double jeopardy because these are two distinct offenses and their elements are different. What the Constitution bars is the subsequent prosecution of the same crime for the same act. The Court used the Blockburger test to see if there was any double jeopardy. The Blockburger test analyzes the elements of the two crimes, and if they are different then no double jeopardy lies. The Court declared that the prosecution for aggravated harassment is not unconstitutional as it does not suffer from the infirmity of double jeopardy.

The Court also considered the application of the husband for release on the basis of the Clayton doctrine. Under the Clayton doctrine, the accused may ask the Court for the dismissal of the criminal action against him in furtherance of justice and fairness without considering the legal or factual merits of the case or the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The Court denied the ex-husband’s Clayton application. The Court ruled that dismissing the criminal case for aggravated harassment would serve to erode the trust of the population in the courts and in the legal system as the laws and the courts will be perceived as unable to protect its citizens against the evils of domestic violence which is prevalent today. The fairness and justice which will be served by his release from the criminal action must not only benefit the ex-husband who is accused, but the courts must also consider the fairness and justice of the dismissal to the complaining witness (his ex-wife) and the community in general.

Does your ex-husband or ex-boyfriend call you to threaten, annoy and alarm you? You do not have to live in fear. You can obtain an order of protection from a family court or from a criminal court. But you cannot do it alone. The complexities of the legal system demand that you obtain the service of well-trained attorneys who can help you navigate through the courts. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our legal counsel can listen to you and they can help build your case and argue it so that you can get the protection against further domestic violence. Do not wait to be a victim, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates at any of their offices in the New York area.

A mother went before the Family Court in Richmond County in New York on a petition asking the family court to declare that her fifteen year-old son is a person in need of supervision (PINS). A New York Custody Lawyer said that during the fact-finding hearing, the Family court found that the fifteen year old did not need supervision but protection. It appears from the testimonies of the boy and his mother that the boy’s father would regularly come home drunk. And during his drunken rage, he would verbally abuse and assault the fifteen year old boy. The most recent episode was when the father attacked the fifteen year old with a baseball bat.

The Family court issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the father of the fifteen-year old. The police arrested the father and brought him to the family court so that he can be within the jurisdiction of the court. While the father was in the Family Court, the judge apprised the father of the petition of the wife in behalf of their fifteen year old son. He explained to him that he was issuing a temporary order of protection in the boy’s favor while the Family court was conducting a hearing on the mother’s petition. The Family court explained to the father that he cannot strike, menace, harass or recklessly endanger the boy during the effectivity of the temporary order of protection. The Family court ordered the father to leave the house and to stay away from the house and his fifteen year old son until the Family court has decided on the mother’s petition. In the meantime, the Family court also ordered the Child Protective Service to conduct an immediate investigation to see if a child protective proceeding should also be brought before the Family Court.

A New York Family Lawyer said that after the temporary order of protection was issued by the Family court, the father returned to the family home and barged into the bedroom of his fifteen year old son and threatened the boy. He yelled at the boy accusing him of being the cause of his expulsion from his own house. The mother called the police and the Family court issued a warrant of arrest against the father. The Family Court also ordered the Special Services for Children to file a neglect petition against the father.

After the father was arrested by the police, he was brought before the Family Court. The judge informed the father of his rights, warning him of the consequences of making admissions against his own interest. The judge then asked him if he had violated the temporary order of protection and he admitted it. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that upon his own admission, the Family court sentenced the father to imprisonment of six months for his willful violation of the temporary order of protection issued by the Family court against him.

The father came to the Supreme Court assailing the first warrant of arrest issued by the Family court. He alleged that the Family Court had no statutory authority to issue a warrant of arrest or a temporary order of protection against him when he was not a party to the petition filed by his wife in behalf of his son.

The Supreme Court ruled that the warrant issued by the Family court for the arrest of the abusive father was proper under Article 7 of the Family Court Act because an order of protection may be issued in behalf of any minor against his parent even if the parent is not a party to the proceeding. And this very article provides that the natural parent who violates an order of protection issued in favor of a minor child may be sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
The Family Court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the arrest of the abusive father. The arrest of the father put his person under the jurisdiction of the court. He was apprised of his rights and of the factual allegations against him. The Family Court also ordered an investigation of the home. That is to say, the warrant of arrest was a mere mechanism by which the Family Court subjected the abusive father to court processes so that an investigation of the home situation may be conducted for a final disposition of the case by the court.
The order of protection did not include with it any finding of negligence, wrong doing or fault of the father. It was just ordered to protect the minor child against any threat of domestic violence. The order of protection’s purpose was to maintain the tranquility and safety of the home.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that the Court notes with approval the six-month prison sentence passed by the Family court on the abusive father for his willful violation of the temporary order of protection. A day less than the full six-month prison term allowed by the statute for willful violations of orders of protection would give boldness to other abusive fathers to trifle with future orders of protection.

Perhaps you are like the mother in this case, at wit’s end, looking for a way to protect your child from the abusive wrath of your spouse or partner, afraid of the escalating domestic violence that might harm your child irreparably. You need not suffer in silence. You can consult with a licensed and trained lawyer for you to know what legal protection you can apply for in behalf of your child. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, their legal team is ready, willing and able to help you get the order of protection you need for your child and for yourself.

A mother was working full time as a public elementary school teacher. After teaching hours, she held two other jobs supervising after school activities in other schools. She was divorced and had three children from two different marriages. The gap between the ages of her three children was large. Her eldest daughter was already a freshman at Princeton and living in the dormitory when the middle child, the son, was in 7th grade and the youngest daughter was just three years old.

A New York Family Lawyer explained that in February 14, 2008, the mother received a bill from an internet cable company for pornographic pay-per-view sessions. She had received a similar bill in the past from the same internet cable company for the same pornographic pay-per-view services. She talked with her son about it after the received the bill on the first time and warned him that pornography can be addictive and she surmised that it was probably the reason why his grades were failing. The son promised not to do it again.

The bill which arrived on February 14, 2008 was the second such bill and she wanted to discuss it with her son but he denied it and walked away from his mother. His mother was so frustrated and so angry that she took a belt and hit her son repeatedly. The boy resisted and fought back and then he tried to get away but his mother grabbed him and they both fell to the floor. The corporal punishment resulted in welts and bruises on the boy’s back, arms, chest and face.

When the boy succeeded in leaving the house, he took to the street on the way to see a family friend who had been a police officer with the NYPD but when he passed the Laundromat on their street, the people there told him to come in from the cold as he was not wearing any shirt. They called 911.

A Nassau Family Lawyer said that the police arrested the mother and neglect proceedings were initiated against her in the Familly court of Kings County. The Family court issued a temporary order of protection in favor of the two children. They were taken from the home and made to stay with a sister of their mother who lived in Manhattan but the mother was granted liberal supervised visits. All the time that the case was proceeding, the mother visited her children every day at their aunt’s house. She tried to have two meals with them each day; did their laundry; helped them with their homework and attended all their extra-curricular activities.

Without an order from the Family court, the school teacher found a parenting support program that offered parenting classes. She attended regularly all the Saturday sessions. She also enrolled in an anger management class which she attended conscientiously. She also sought help from a family therapist. And when her son finally agreed, she took him with her for family therapy so that he could address the issue of his addiction to pornography. They had sessions with the therapist to discuss what happened on February 14, 2008 and why the mother and the son seemed to be at odds all the time. A Queens Family Lawyer conceded that they had worked out strategies on how to deal with their anger and frustration as they continue to attend therapy together.

When the children’s aunt complained that she had great difficulty shuttling the children from her apartment in Manhattan to the children’s school in Brooklyn, the mother looked for a suitable home with a family friend who was a den mother for the local Boy Scouts that her son was in.
The boy had since finished middle school and had obtained a partial scholarship to a Catholic High School. He is doing better in school and is involved in basketball and practices after class until 8pm. Even the daughter is doing well in elementary school.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the Family court thereafter allowed the children to stay with their mother on weekends before finally lifting the temporary order of protection and releasing them back in her custody. She had been in custody of her children for nine months when she filed a motion in the Family court to dismiss the petition for neglect against her. She claims that the children do not need protection against the threat of domestic violence from the Family court anymore as they have already established a loving family environment. She asserts that she has learned how to deal with the stress of her own life and how not to take it out on her children. She asserts that she loves her children and wants what is best for them. She is the only means of financial support for the children and if the petition for neglect is allowed to continue despite the great changes she has made in her life, she may lose her job and the children will lose the only parent who is supporting them.

The New York City Child Services and the Administration for Child Services opposed the motion of the mother stating that the school teacher should lose her job since the volatile anger that triggered the domestic violence in her home may also spill over and endanger all the public school children in her charge.

The Court notes the openness with which the mother has admitted her wrongdoing. She has sorted out her emotional issues and has learned what triggered her volatile outburst. She has asked forgiveness of her children and of the court for her inappropriate behavior and has since changed her parenting. Particularly, the Court was impressed with the story she related (and which her son corroborated) that they went to visit a family friend at his house and while they were there, some money went missing. When they got home, the mother confronted her son who promptly denied that he had taken the money. She admitted that at the time she was extremely angry and embarrassed but she allowed time for them both to calm down before discussing the matter. When they finally talked about it, the son admitted to having taken the money.

The Court cited numerous cases where the petition for neglect had been dismissed on evidentiary findings of fact supporting the claim of the parent charged with neglect that she has changed and has learned her lesson. The Court also noted with approval the sincerity of the mother in finding help for herself and for her son even without the Court ordering her to do it. The Court is satisfied that whatever emotional issues the mother and son have with each other, they are doing their best in working them out in the therapy they are in. The Court observed that the therapy session was never ordered by the court but was obtained by the mother at her own initiative because she wanted to further a good relationship with her son. The Court is satisfied that the mother poses no threat to the safety and well-being of her children.

Moreover, the Court reiterated that neglect proceedings are not punitive in nature. They were allowed by statute in order for the Courts to intervene in troubled lives of families which are marred by domestic violence and neglect to help them and assist them. When there is a fair showing that the parties to the case no longer need the help of the court as there is no more neglect of the children in the home, then the Court has to dismiss the petition for neglect. For this reason, the Court granted the mother’s motion and dismissed the petition for neglect against her.

Have you ever lost control of your anger and hurt your child? Has an order of protection been issued against you? But like this woman who truly wants to be a good mother to her children, you have mended your ways and you have done all that the court has required for you to do prove that your parenting skills have improved? You can get your family life back. And you can get the petition for neglect filed against you dismissed. But doing so involves a careful presentation of evidencing documenting the steps you have taken to learn how to be a good parent. You need the assistance of a sympathetic and able legal counsel to assist you and guide you to present your case and argue it so that you can get your family life back. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, they have competent and compassionate legal team who can assist you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today and confer with one of our lawyers today; visit at any of their offices in the New York area. They are ready, willing and able to help you.

A man from Albania migrated to the United States. He had lived in Brooklyn, New York for a few years when he went back home to Albania on a visit and met the woman who would become his wife. They married in Albania but a few weeks after their wedding, the man left his wife with his parents in Albania to go back to the US. The man visited his wife yearly for a few weeks at a time until their firstborn son was about three years old and he had the boy circumcised. After the circumcision, the boy asked to be taken to the bathroom often. The bathroom was an outhouse in the back corner of the man’s parents’ house. The man told his wife not to give in to his repeated demands but the wife felt that the boy must be in some discomfort so she took him to the bathroom. When she came back in, the man slapped his wife that her head hit the wall.

A New York Criminal Lawyer explained that the pattern of physical abuse began. A few years later, the man was able to secure green cards for his wife, his son and his parents and brothers and brought them all to America. All the time that the wife lived with her husband in the United States, he was controlling her every activity and her every movement. He refused to give her money, refused to allow her to find employment and refused to allow her to leave the house unless accompanied by one of his relatives. He started calling her names and refused to address her by her given name. He even refused her pleas to get pre-natal medical care for the three successive children she had been pregnant with.

According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, when she was pregnant with their fifth child, the man took his wife and children back to Albania to attend a relative’s wedding but instead of bringing them back with him to the United States, he left his pregnant wife and four children in the care of the man’s parents and brothers. He took the passports of his wife and his children. It was at this time that the man first started accusing his wife of having affairs with other men when they were living in New York. He claimed that the child the wife was carrying was the product of her adulterous relations.

He left his children and his wife in Albania and only visited them occasionally. When he did visit, he refused to see his wife. He refused to allow his wife to visit with her own parents and family even while she was living in Albania.

A Queens Family Lawyer claimed that he filed divorce proceedings against his wife and applied to deprive his wife of custody over their children. The judge dismissed the divorce proceedings. Later, the man told his wife that her mother was grievously ill and so she should go and see her. The wife left the man’s parent’s home, carrying her youngest child with her because she was still breastfeeding the baby. She went to see her mother but when she got to her mother’s house, her mother was not sick at all. The man then refused to take back the wife into his parents’ home. He refused her custody of her children and refused her any visitation. Later, the man took his four children back to the United States leaving his wife and their youngest child.
The wife, through the help of friends and associations in the United States was able to go back to the United States. But when the man heard that his wife was able to go back to the United States, he instituted divorce proceedings against her. Not knowing that her husband had filed divorce proceedings against her, she filed a petition for the issuance of an order of protection for her and for her children, for support and for the legal and physical primary custody of her children. The Family Court decided to consolidate the two actions and to hear them jointly.

The Court found that the wife’s version of the facts was more credible than that of the husband’s which consisted mainly in outright denials. The Court also chose to believe the wife because she presented a tape recording made by a friend of the wife and the husband arguing. The Court noted that it was a one-sided argument as the man was berating, insulting and calling his wife names while the wife was just pleading with the husband to be allowed to see her children.
The Court also appreciated the numerous times that the wife called the police whenever she would pick up her children from their school and the plaintiff would physically block the wife’s way and threaten her verbally until the police arrived to take the wife and her children to her apartment.

The Court notes especially that even while at the police station where the wife was waiting for the husband to bring the children for her weekend visitation with them, the plaintiff berated, threatened, annoyed and alarmed the wife in the presence of so many people. The father’s behavior was even imitated by his own youngest children. And when their father had left, the children apologized to their mother for having said the nasty things to her and imitating their father’s verbal abuse of their mother.

The Court was especially bothered by the fact that the eldest son has begun to call his own mother names and to accuse her of taking drugs and having love affairs with men. A New York Family Lawyer commented that the boy is only ten years old but he exhibits symptoms of having been influenced by his own father’s attitude toward women in general and his mother in particular. He has been constantly brought up to believe that his mother is evil.

If only to keep the children from developing the same low opinion and disrespect of women particularly their own mother, the wife is entitled to the order of protection she asks for. The husband has exhibited abusive behavior that can only escalate to domestic violence. The children must be protected from his example; they must be protected from seeing this kind of behavior perpetrated before them with impunity for fear that they will adapt the same behavior and the same values.

Aside from this, the Court has appreciated the fact that the man is actually an absentee father. He is with his children but other people are taking care of his children. He is uninvolved in their lives and in their formation as individuals. He cannot give the nurture that his children need at this time in their lives. The Court granted the wife full custody of all the minor children of their marriage.

The Court for now grants the wife legal custody over eldest son but gives the husband physical custody of the oldest son. This arrangement will be temporary while the son is undergoing therapy to modify his attitude toward his mother. The temporary custody over the eldest son is conditioned on the willingness of the father to allow their son to go into therapy and to visit with his mother. The husband must promise to modify his behavior and if he continues to alienate the affections of the son from his mother, the Court will not hesitate to deprive him of all visitation rights except strictly supervised visitation with a social worker present the whole time.
The Court granted the divorce prayed for by the husband and the child support prayed for by the wife.

Are you a battered wife? Are you a victim of domestic violence and spousal abuse? Do not suffer in silence. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates and ask to confer with legal counsel to help you obtain an order of protection for yourself and for your children. Our legal team can help assist you in filing for a divorce and obtain child support for your children.

No one can deny the extreme love that people have for their pets. Companion animals, be they furry, feathered, scaled or finned, bring out the best in the owners who love care for them. Pets bring love, warmth and devotion into our lives,and caring for them is a responsibility that most pet owners are happy to assume, according to a New York Family Lawyer. 



Planning for the care of our pets after we are gone is necessary. Rather than being seen as mere assets that need a place to be stored, a growing trend in estate planning seems to taking place as more pet owners are leaving trust funds to the animals themselves. 

These trusts are legally binding, and provide calm reassurance to pet owners that once they are no longer capable of caring for their beloved friend, the animals needs will still be maintained and their lives will still be filled with love and affection. Pet owners can name guardians for their animals in the event of the owners death as well as set aside money that is only to be used in the care and feeding of the animals. 



Reports suggest that these trust funds are not just for the rich and famous. It does not cost a million dollars to keep a dog happy. And while high profile cases, such as Leona Helmsly leaving a veritable fortune to her dog, seem to be more excessively amusing than anything else, real people who love their animals are taking steps every day to make certain that their animals will remain comfortable no matter what befalls their owners. 

If you have questions or concerns regarding issues of custody, marriage, divorce or family planning, contact a Stephen Bilkis and Associates today for answers. Not only wwill skilled legal counsel be there for answers and guidance in your time of need, but they will represent your case with responsibility and respect.

A New York Family Lawyer knows that when losing a loved one, the pain is tremendous. And, finding out that your family is in financial ruin is even more difficult. That is of course, if your family is actually suffering from poverty after the loss. One family parted ways as the widow and the son of the deceased tricked the two girls in the family into believing that their father was deeply in debt when he died.

The man’s widow was to receive one-third of the man’s estate and the rest was to be split equally between his son and two daughters. The son and the widow hid the fact that there was a will and insisted that the property the man owned would need to be sold. The young man finished law school but never joined the bar and basically built up a real estate business for himself.

The girls who found the will in a Bronx courthouse, promptly drove to their brothers home in Long Island. The sisters confronted their brother who eventually called the police to escort the sisters out. The case has remained in a Family Court since that time. Seven years later, a judge in a Bronx court ruled that the statue of limitations had expired. After an appeal, the decisions was reversed setting the stage for a second trial.

During the time of waiting, one of the sisters borrowed against her teacher’s pension and the other was on food stamps and was threatened with foreclosure. The sisters were helped by lawyers willing to work on the case pro se because neither of the ladies could afford a lawyer. The sisters eventually received the rights to various properties but were still upset because they felt like their father had wanted them to enjoy his estate while they were young.

Although this case will probably loom even longer, as the brother is disputing the price of one of the properties that the sisters acquired, this is definitely a learning curve for others. And, because of that, this could very well be one of the longest of its kind. A New York Custody Lawyer commented that family Court is normally where cases like this occur but with the time invested in this one case, this case definitely seems unique.

A New York Family Lawyer reported last week that Chris Brown’s court order to stay away from ex-girlfriend Rihanna has been lifted.

Chris Brown still reportedly is prohibited from harassing Rihanna after being sentenced to five years of community service and probation. The R & B star was also sentenced to complete twelve months of domestic violence courses after he plead guilty to violently attacking and assaulting Rihanna.

Rihanna and Chris Brown were in a serious relationship when Chris Brown became abusive with Rihanna. Brown reportedly physically and mentally abused her several times before the singer pressed charges against him. Rihanna’s attorney was ok with the downgrade to the protection order.

Brown is not new to anger and violence troubles. He has been in trouble for angry outbursts more than once these past few years. Brown publicly spoke out on twitter with hate words. His response to these charges: “In an unfortunate lack in judgment sparked by public Twitter attacks from an attention seeking Raz-B,” Brown says in a statement provided by his publicist. “Words cannot begin to express how sorry and frustrated I am over what transpired publicly on Twitter.”

Brown apparently had been fired up by a tweet talking about his brutal assault on his ex-girlfriend. His response on twitter was “over the edge,” according to some, and proves he continues to struggle with anger problems.

Brown also said, “I have learned over the past few years to not condone or represent acts of violence against anyone. Molestation and victims of such acts are not to be taken lightly; and for my comments I apologize — from the bottom of my heart. I love all of my fans, gay and straight. I have friends from all walks of life and I am committed, with God’s help, to continue becoming a better person.”

Brown finished the course on domestic violence and proudly tweeted “I’m done with class i have enough self-respect and decency to be proud of accomplishing this DV class. Boyz run from their mistakes. Men learn from them!!!thx”

Since Brown’s arrest and the class completion, Rhianna could not be reached for comment. The star reportedly continues to undergo counseling according to a Queens Family Lawyer . She continuously says she hopes that her pressing charges against Chris Brown will help other abused women find the courage to come forward and get themselves out of bad situations.

Brown’s attorneys could not be reached for comment regarding the twitter comments and his road to recovery.

Domestic violence is serious and can destroy your life and self esteem. Whether you need assistance with a divorce, an order for protection, or spousal support, contact a New York Custody Lawyer from our office for assistance.

One little girl, doodling on her desk as many children are, found herself in a heap of trouble. She was a good student, rarely absent and was merely leaving her mark with an erasable marker on her desk. Apparently she was waiting on the teacher to hand out an assignment and boredom led her to leave a message on her desk. She figured she would be forced to clean up the marking on her desk but never dreamed she was going to find herself in jail for such a minor offense.

Arresting youngsters for minor infractions seems to be the norm in Queens as another 13-year-old was arrested for writing "Okay” on her desk. And, a 5-year-old was sent to a psych ward after throwing a temper tantrum, as five-year-olds seem to do on occasion. And now the various schools will answer to a court. The girl doodling while waiting on an assignment has been throwing up and is obviously distressed by the situation. She is still suspended from school and was given eight hours of community service, a book report and an essay on what she learned from the experience, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

This is one situation in a series of small infractions where children are being forced into realization in what seems like a bit of over-kill. And, her family will most likely seek counsel from a family lawyer or one specializing in cases where someone has suffered from what is seemingly an extremely minor and senseless use of the legal system.

Continue reading " Doodling On Your Desk Calls for Legal Intervention " »

A man who was wrongly accused of rape in 2008 is finally seeing justice being served. The initial case said the man raped his autistic daughter, who also happens to be mute and low-functioning, and the mother did nothing. The case was brought out when a teacher aide helped the girl type, even though she cannot speak or function above a two-year old level, said a New York Family Lawyer.

There was a physical examination, which showed there was no evidence of abuse. However, the man sat in jail for 80 days and his wife, the mother of the child, was also facing charges of abuse from the statement the teacher aide typed, according to a New York Custody Lawyer. The teacher aide has not faced any charges and was not named in the lawsuit against the township that handled the arrest. More lawsuits may be pending in the civil courts.

The case was dropped in March of 2008 because there was a lack of any evidence to prosecute the father or the mother involved. They had to go through a process and have their children removed from Foster Care. They also had lawyer expenses and court costs to cover. The $1.8 million dollar settlement will cover some of those expenses. Even though the family won the case, the township police department where they live maintains they did nothing wrong. They were simply following procedure from the report of an abused child.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can assist you and your family members with any type of family matter going to court. Consult with our office before you report to court unrepresented. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation with your first visit.

Diana Richie is trying to break the Lionel Richie 'piggy bank." After finalizing a divorce, she is now asking for substantial payments in alimony and child support. Explaining that they lived very high on the hog, she claims it will be difficult to get by on anything less than $300,000 a month, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The couple has been married for over ten years and have two kids. A Beverly Hills mansion, with its 30 rooms is their humble abode.

They have many employees and huge expenses to keep up with claims Diana. The mansion is on several acres and needs to be attended to all the time. She also said that there are monthly expenses that Lionel, 54, needs to cover. These include clothing, shoes, massages and vitamins.

The couple began dating back in the '80s after meeting at The Olympics. She was a dancer at the time.

Any time anyone chooses to obtain a separation or divorce, particularly when children are involved, it is in one's best interest to have a New York Custody Lawyer to represent you. Visitation and custody both full and joint will most likely be an issue. A skilled attorney will give you the opportunity to navigate your predicament in the best possible way. An official order of protection is only needed when child abuse and child neglect are involved.

Richie admitted that her husband has taken care of her in a special way since she was a kid.

Continue reading " Make Sure You're Represented By a Legal Counsel if You're Sued For a Fortune Like Lionel Richie " »

Sandra Bullock has recently adopted a 3 ½ month old boy from New Orleans. His first name is Louis; reports are unclear if Bullock will give the child her last name. Bullock, who is famous for movies such as “Speed”, “The Blind Side” and “Miss Congeniality”, has had the child for the last few months. She managed to keep the adoption a secret from the media. Bullock filed for a divorce from Jesse James in Texas, and cited the reason is a conflict of personalities.

Since the announcement of her divorce to James, she has changed the adoption paperwork to a “single parent adoption.” James has agreed to let Bullock adopt Louis on her own so that Bullock will have sole custody.

Whether you are involved in a divorce, adoption or custody batte, it is important to speak to qualified New York Custody Lawyer at your first opportunity. It is important to ensure that your rights are protected, as well of those of your children. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York City area, including office locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have office locations in both Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Contact us and we will provide you with answers, and a free consultation. Make your appointment today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Many people tend to overlook the likelihood of being hit with certain taxes because they aren’t considered “rich.” But according to a New York Family Lawyer, many upper middle-class families could be hit with an unplanned tax rate as high as 35%.

Currently the law provides an exemption for estate taxes of up to $5 million for those who die in 2011 and 2012. What many families are unaware of is that this amount can easily be exceeded when you take life insurance coverage, a valuable home, healthy retirement balances and other assets into account.

“Don’t forget to count any private business ownership interests such as shares in a family corporation or partnership,” explained a New York Custody Lawyer.

He continued and sited an example of a divorced single parent. “She earns a healthy salary, she has a $4 million term life policy to provide for her three teenagers, has $800,000 of equity in her home, $1 million in retirement plan accounts, and $500,000 worth of assorted personal assets (cars, clothes, furniture, jewelry, and so forth). She has no debt other than her mortgage and because she has never considered herself to be anything close to ‘rich’ she has never done any estate-tax-avoidance planning.”

The lawyer explained that if this mom died tomorrow, her estate would be worth $6.3 million for federal estate tax purposes ($4 million + $800,000 + $1 million + $500,000), and her estate would accumulate a state bill of $455,000. Her children would have to pay this bill.

This scenario is all too common states a Nassau County Family Lawyer, and claims that for unmarried people, high life insurance coverage is the biggest culprit for unexpected federal estate taxes. Married couples, he sited have an advantage because of the unlimited marital deduction privilege. This deduction is only good for U.S. citizens, he explained.

Lawyers are now recommending to their clients setting up an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust. This basically helps avoid traditional estate taxes on the life insurance policy because it is not officially owned by anybody. The only catch is if you die within three years of setting up the trust your family is subject to estate taxes.

In the end, Stephen Bilkis and Associates urges folks to talk to a professional to assess their situation. Although many families think they are exempt, often times they are not and only a professional can make the right recommendation. “It’s money well-spent,” one lawyer concluded.

Unexpected taxes can put a family in financial ruin. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will help reveal possible taxes your family could incur. Come in today for legal guidance and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout New York City, as well as Long Island and Westchester County.

According to a New York Family Lawyer, President Obama signed an estate tax overhaul last December. This new law will allow certain upper class couples, who are on their first marriage, to leave their possessions in such a way that will greatly reduce or eliminate taxes.

Under the new law, you are allowed to leave your spouse an unlimited amount with no tax. There are a couple of changes in this new law. First, your lifetime tax exemption is now raised to $5 million from $3.5 million. A widowed spouse can also now transfer any unused amount from their spouse to their selves. So now a total of $10 million could be left tax exempt.

This new law is not retroactive. If your spouse died before 2011 then you can’t claim the new changes. The first spouse to die has to file an estate tax return in order to claim this benefit even if no tax is due. The widowed spouse needs to file this return even if the dollar amount left seems to be low. Since this new law keeps the exemption from skipping a generation, a very rich person is forced to use the exemption to avoid tax for their grandchildren.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that this new law will expire in December 2012 unless Congress makes some changes. If allowed to expire, the $5 million allowed in exemption would go back down to $1 million.

Even though this new law will help some people avoid tax, there is still a need to look at your estate plan if you have a bypass or family trust set up. If that trust is funded to maximum then a spouse could be left without anything outside the fund. A few key changes need to be made. You may even need to do away with a traditional trust in order to take full advantage of this new law, as said by a Nassau County Family Lawyer.

If you have been remarried, then you may still need to use a trust fund in order to protect your children from a new spouse being able to claim all your money once you pass away.

State laws vary and have to be considered as well. Be sure and have Stephen Bilkis and Associates look at your situation. These laws can be complicated and are constantly changing. A qualified legal counsel can help you make sure that everything is set up in such a way to maximum your tax exemption.

For your convenience, we have offices located throughout New York City, including locations in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens and Manhattan. We also have locations in Westchester County, and Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island. Come in today for a free consultation.

President Obama recently proclaimed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which basically prohibits the recognition of same sex marriages, unconstitutional, and ordered the Justice Department to discontinue any defense of the act, explained a New York Family Lawyer

Supporters of same sex marriages were elated by this decision, but republicans questioned his political motive, because the President opposes same-sex marriage, has recently pushed to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell law”(bars military from letting gays serve), and had done just the opposite his first two years in office.

Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr. explained the decision in a letter to Congress. His letter basically said the administration would no longer defend the law despite the fact that they had defended it for the past two years.

“The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to a strict legal test intended to block unfair discrimination,” Mr. Holder said, “As a result, a crucial provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.”

“This is a great step by the Obama administration and a tipping point for the gay rights movement that will have ripple effects in contexts beyond the Defense of Marriage Act,” said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It will reach into issues of employment discrimination, family recognition and full equality rights for lesbian and gay people.”

Conservatives and other critics called this recent abandonment of the Act “an outrageous political move that was legally unjustified,” said a New York Criminal Lawyer.

“It is a transparent attempt to shirk the department’s duty to defend the laws passed by Congress,” Republican and Texas Representative Lamar Smith, said in a statement. “This is the real politicization of the Justice Department — when the personal views of the president override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land.”

A Nassau County Family Lawyer say this issue has reopened the debate about whether or not same sex couples should be able to marry. Advocates of same-sex marriage are hopeful the Presidents views are changing and that he will not only continue to support civil unions, but will embrace same-sex marriages.

Planning for the future as a same sex couple continues to present challenges. Legal counsel understands these challenges and can help you and your partner with the law and what it means for your situation. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will stand by you through these difficult political times.

Come into to our office for legal advice and a free consultation. We can answer your questions and ensure that your rights are protected. We have offices throught New York City, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island as well as Westschester County. Call us today to schedule an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

The estate tax question that loomed in previous years was finally settled at the very end of the year by Congress. The estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping tax (GST) were all given top rates of 35 percent with a $5 million lifetime individual exemption.

These exemptions for estate and gift taxes are even transferable between spouses, a New York Family Lawyer has learned. Should one spouse pass away, the executor of the estate can transfer any unused portion of this $5 million individual exemption to the surviving spouse.

As the law now stands, this law will only stand through 2012, unless something changes. Matters may be entirely different in 2013. Those who know the laws of estate planning are advising clients to take advantage of this window of opportunity.

The biggest deal is the $5 million lifetime gift tax exemption. When it comes to married couples, the amount is more like $10 million. Compare this to 2010, when this exemption was only $1 million and couldn’t be transferred between spouses.

These leaves many with the choice of holding on to their money and risking high taxes on it or giving it away before 2013 to avoid high inheritance taxes of the future.

Lifetime gifts have the effect of lowering the giver’s taxable estate. If money is given in the proper fashion, their capital gains tax rate could be as low as zero percent through 2012.

The rule of portability – passing on your unused tax exemption – comes with an important rule. The executor of the deceased spouse must file an estate tax return – even if no estate tax is owed. It is the estate tax return that tells the IRS the unused or partially used tax exemption is being passed on. According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the estate tax return is due nine months after the death of the spouse, with a possible six-month extension.

Continue reading " Estate Planning Issues " »

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a man, his wife, and their daughter, under suspicion of visa fraud, sources have confirmed to a New York Family Lawyer.

ICE officials suspect the Yorba Linda, CA, family of arranging fraudulent marriages, filing fraudulent marriage petitions, and filing fraudulent work visa petitions.

The investigation that began in 2009 as a result of officers of the Fraud Detection and National Security Division of USCIS began noticing similarities between more than 20 visa petitions they traced back to the company the family ran. Many of the documents that were used contained the same marriage and divorce certificates, witnesses, and even the same spouses.

The family business reportedly catered to Indian nationals who would be billed for fees of $15,000 and up to $60,000. The fee was based on the type of visa they wanted. The highest fee was charged for a marriage visa. Marriages were allegedly arranged by the family business to unemployed or low-income U.S. citizens who would be paid up to $2,000 for their efforts in the scam. The couples would then have their pictures taken together, open joint bank accounts, and do whatever else was required so as to make the fraudulent marriages appear real. After a time, the couples would divorce and some of the U.S. citizens would repeat the process with another foreigner.

A spokesman for ICE told a New York Custody Lawyer that those who think they can use the U.S. immigration system for personal gain would learn that “there's a high price to pay.” He went on to add, “Visa fraud is a serious crime. Not only does it undermine the integrity of our legal immigration process and penalize those who abide by the law, it also poses a significant [sic] security vulnerability.”

It is unknown at this time whether this is the family’s first run-in with the law, or if they have a history of criminal activity. If convicted on each of the charges, each of the family members faces up to five years in a federal prison.

Continue reading " ICE Arrests Family for Providing Fake Marriages for Visas " »

It is very common for parties who are fighting over the custody of their children to have visitation agreements that state the exact time and place of exchange of custody from one parent to another, if and when the primary custodial role is awarded to one of the parents. As explained by a New York Family Lawyer, a schedule for standard visitation typically includes alternating weekend visits of the non-custodial parent, extended summer visits and alternating holidays. Most of the time, it will depend on the parties' agreement. In this case, when Ray Russenberger's and Cynthia Russenberger's (now Steltenkamp) marriage was finally dissolved, the Mother was selected as the primary custodian but must adhere to "liberal" visitation rights by the Father to his children. Moreover, the agreement included that the parents still have the full rights and responsibilities in bringing up their children and must decide with each other concerning their children's interests. Also no written stipulation demanded that they don't leave Pensacola or prohibited going to any other location.

Immediately after the divorce proceedings, when the visitation rights were exercised by the Father, he found it difficult to stop by and see his children because there was no specific schedule specified on the provisions as to when and where he would visit his children. So on February 4th, the Father filed a move for a final judgment, stating the problems he is dealing with visitation and had asked the judge to enforce a visitation schedule so he could easily see his five children. The next day, he was advised by his legal counsel that his former wife was planning to move houses to Suffern, New York, together with their five children. A few weeks later, Mrs. Steltenkamp's legal counsel let Mr. Russenberger know that his ex-wife would like to come up with a reasonable visitation schedule for him, once they relocate to New York. On February 25th, Mr. Russenberger petitioned to enforce a final judgment and filed a motion for temporary injunction to prevent his ex-wife from relocating with the kids to New York. Then on April 5th, the motions were granted and the children were to stay in Pensacola to finish their studies before relocating.

When Mrs. Russenberger married her new husband, Mike Steltenkamp, she knew that she and her new husband would eventually have to relocate to Suffern for his new job position. Also, even before their marriage, they have already bought a new house in Suffern and that they already intended to relocate in January of 2003. On May 1993, Mr. Russenberger filed a motion for contempt and asked the court to enforce a visit schedule. As a result, negotiations ensued but no agreement was made because the Father would not agree to the children traveling to New York and living there. He also said that any travel to New York would infringe on the temporary injunction granted by the court in April. A hearing was then set to decide whether to allow Mrs. Steltenkamp to bring the children to New York but days before the date of the hearing, she called Mr. Russenberger to inform him that she was already in New York with the kids for a few weeks and that he wouldn't be able to exercise his visitation rights for the duration of their trip.

Mr. Russenberger then filed an emergency move to hold his ex-wife in contempt. She wasn't considered in contempt but she was ordered to return the kids to Pensacola within a day, or if she fails, Mr. Russenberger was permitted to go to New York and that he was coming to get the kids himself. The proceedings went on until the end of the year and during those hearings and proceedings, the Father requested that his children undergo psychological evaluations to determine how they are faring about their situation. He even renewed this request for evaluations and even challenged the lower court when the request for the psychological tests was denied. According to our New York Criminal Lawyer, a trial court held hearings that let both sides present evidences regarding the relocation, the impact of the situation to the children, and evidences that show that the children are better off in Pensacola than anywhere else. Also issues about the visitation rights of the Father were brought up to the trial court.

Mr. Russenberger then quit on insisting about the psychological evaluations that the children must undergo, however, the Supreme Court finds this necessary, instead. Also, the Father argued that since the lower court already disregarded the motion, it must not push through anymore. Custody battles make it difficult for courts to come up with decisions because there is a lot of emotional baggage coming from the parties and the children involved in the proceedings. Therefore, to determine the weight of each of the parties' intention, much like King Solomon has, the courts based their decisions on two similar cases and these are the Mize and Hill decisions. The Mize decision provides that courts must decide on the basis of consideration of the family's best interests and that as long as the custodial party did not intend to get rid of the non-custodial parent's visitation rights, then it is alright to relocate the children.

A Queens Family Lawyer explained that the Hill decision considered several factors before approving a petition for relocation. The following are: (1.) if the relocation will better the quality of children and primary custodian's lives, (2.) whether the transfer is accomplished to prevent the non-custodial party from visiting, (3.) whether the parent who has custody will be able to conform to visitation arrangements, (4.) whether the new visitation set-up will be enough to promote and continue the existing relationship between the other parent and the children, (5.) whether it is affordable to both parties, and (6.) whether the relocation will be for the children's best interests. Looking at these, the Mize decision seems to have a preference for relocation because it states that since a custodian parent was appointed, it follows that where ever that parent goes will be for the best interest of his or her children. Under the Mize decision, if Mrs. Steltenkamp decides that New York is best for her, then it also follows that it is also what is best for their children.

According to our Nassau County Family Lawyer, when the Mize and the Hill decisions were applied together, they were actually contradicting because the Hill decision was just simply too difficult to achieve. In this case, both decisions were

The Missouri Supreme Court granted a Guatemalan immigrant a retrial in a lower court over a child custody case. They ruled that the state did not follow law when she was caught in an immigration sweep, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The court stated that the state terminated her parental rights prematurely, which allowed her son to be adopted by another family. Even thought the court sided with the immigrant, she was not reunited with her son. She will have another hearing before a lower court to determine whether her parental rights should be terminated, a New York Custody Lawyer declared.

The woman was detained when she was working illegally in a poultry processing plant. Instead of allow her to arrange for her 6-month-old son, her custody was terminated and her son was adopted. Her son is now 4 years old and has been with his adoptive parents for over two years now.

Luckily, her son was not left alone. The immigrant’s brother and sister took care of the child before he was placed in foster care. He was taken care of for several months by a couple willing to babysit for the woman. After he was put into foster care, he was adopted, a Nassau Family Custody Lawyer had been told.

The court on Tuesday agreed that even though the woman was an immigrant her rights should not have been terminated. The 14th amendment protects everyone in America, including immigrants. They are entitled to due process and equal protection. The woman’s rights were violated.

In a previous court hearing, a judge determined that she had abandoned her child and her rights were revoked. Previously, she had asked that he be put into foster care until she could care for him herself. The IEC are obligated to release an immigrant if they have a child to take care of. She would have still been charged, but she would have been able to take care of her child. Her son was born a United States Citizen.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help protect you and your family’s rights. If you believe the U.S. government has violated your rights, let our legal team take your case and hold the government responsible. When you come in, we will provide you with a free consultation and sound legal guidance. We have offices conveniently located throughout New York City, including offices in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island and Westchester County. Call us today for an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Parents who separate must continue financially supporting their children even after their marriages have already been dissolved. However, according to our New York Family Lawyer, it is natural for parties under cases like these to be full of bitterness and resentment directed towards each of the parties. Usually, a custodial parent is appointed to determine the children's residence as well as for tax purposes. Some custodial parents refuse visitation rights from non-custodial parents, who in turn, refuse to pay for child support. When this happens, the children's welfare is put on the back seat. This is one of the drawbacks of separation. In this case that we will talk about, the Mother was awarded custodial rights and was receiving benefits from public assistance. Naturally, the Department of HRS will seek he father for child support who was allegedly in arrears for more than $980. Therefore, a motion was sought to hold the father in contempt for refusal to pay child support.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the HRS found out that the father was financially able to pay for the child support. During the time of the hearing, the Father defended himself by stating that the reason he did not pay for child support is because of the Mother's refusal to allow him to see his child. And because of that, the court rules on the Father's favor and concluded that the Father was not found to be acting in contempt and that he is not liable to pay for child support for an indefinite period. This made the HRS appeal the reversal of the trial court's decision. In addition to the Father's defense, the trial court also found out that neither and order of visitation nor was a request for one made by the Father. Our Nassau County Family Lawyer clarified that if the Father wanted to visit the children, all he had to do was ask the court to permit him to visit and if he was able to secure one, and the Mother refused the visit, the Mother will be held in contempt.

Since the Father did not do anything to appeal the court or have the Mother be held in contempt, he unknowingly waived his visitation rights. The trial court was not able to modify the child support terms because no proper proceedings were invoked to be able to settle the issue. To modify the child support, the parties could have agreed for new terms and the need for the modification must be thoroughly explained and justified. How the new terms will be able to support the child must also be discussed and conferred with by the parties. If and when they cannot reach for a settlement, then they may ask the Court to modify the child support terms. Again, the new terms must be justified and explained and that they must be granted on the basis of a change in one of the parent's circumstances such as loss of a job, disability, inability to pay, etc. However, in this case, none of these proceedings happened. Thus, the Father was found to be in contempt for refusing to pay for the child support and using the lack of visitation as a justification for doing so. The trial was then recommended to be remanded or sent back to a lower court for further trial and action. Moreover, it was suggested that the Father's duty to pay for child support must be enforced according to the law.

According to our Queens Family Lawyer, alimony or child support must not be dependent or must not rely upon whether the Father did not have visitation rights or was refused by the Mother during his visits. Unfortunately, many cases like this grant the waiver of child visitation and subsequently, the obligation to pay for child support. It must be known to all that if a parent fails to honor the visitation rights of a non-custodial parent, the child support must not be discontinued because of it. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act or URESA provides that the non-custodial parent must still pay alimony even if he was not permitted to visit by the custodial parent. On the other hand, if the non-custodial parent was unable to pay for child support because of extraordinary reasons, then the custodial parent must not refuse that parent's visitation rights.

If you think that your case is similar to this, don't hesitate to seek the help of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Protect your children from becoming entangled in angry and bitter disputes and let us assist you in this trying time. our office will help you overcome this difficult moment in your lives civilly, sensibly and most of all, for the benefit of your children. Call one of our offices now.

A divorce settlement that was hammered out previous to Bernie Madoff getting arrested and convicted might get a man some money back, says a New York Family Lawyer. The couple had several million dollars in an account – or so they thought – with Bernie Madoff’s investment firm. The account was then split and the man and wife went their separate ways. That is, until the man found out there were fewer millions in the account than what he was led to believe.

The case has gone through many different appeals, with judges not being able to reach a unanimous decision. This time, the case was heard by the New York State Appeals court and there was a 3-2 vote for the case to be re-heard. The man is dancing in the street; however the ex-wife is not as thrilled.

The account was said to have $5.4 million dollars sitting in it, which was then split in half between the two in 2006. Once Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme came to light, the man claimed that it was an accounting error from when they made the split and she should have to pony back some of the money he gave her. Since the money didn’t exist, he should not have to give her half of it. The judges are torn between the reality of the money being there and determining when, exactly, the mistake was made. The case will be presented to the judges in the coming months.

A New York Custody Lawyer can help with divorce and family issues you are dealing with. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York City for your convenience, including locations in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

Many people tend to overlook the likelihood of being hit with a large estate tax because they aren’t considered “wealthy.” But according to a New York Family Lawyer, many upper middle-class citizens could be hit with a tax rate as high as 35%.

Under the current law, there is an exemption for estate tax of up to $5 million for those who die in 2011 and 2012. What is news to many is that this amount can easily be exceeded when you take life insurance coverage, a valuable home, healthy retirement balances and other assets into account.

“Don’t forget to count any private business ownership interests such as shares in a family corporation or partnership,” explained a New York Custody Lawyer.
He sites an example of a single parent. “She earns a healthy salary, she has a $4 million term life policy to provide for her three teenagers, has $800,000 of equity in her home, $1 million in retirement plan accounts, and $500,000 worth of assorted personal assets (cars, clothes, furniture, jewelry, and so forth). She has no debt other than her mortgage and because she has never considered herself to be anything close to ‘wealthy’ she has never done any estate-tax-avoidance planning.”

The lawyer explained that if she died tomorrow, her estate would be worth $6.3 million for federal estate tax purposes ($4 million + $800,000 + $1 million + $500,000), and her estate would accumulate a state bill of $455,000.

This scenario is very common, and they and say that for unmarried people, high life insurance coverage is the biggest reason for unexpected federal estate taxes. Married couples, that are United States Citizens, he sited have an advantage because of the unlimited marital deduction privilege.

Lawyers are now recommending to their clients setting up an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust. This basically helps avoid traditional estate taxes on the life insurance policy because it is not officially owned by anybody. The only catch is if you die within three years of setting up the trust you are subject to estate tax on it.

In the end, a Nassau County Family Lawyer recommend talking to a professional to find out what your situation is. Although many people think they are exempt, often times they are not and only a professional can make the right recommendation. “It’s money well-spent,” one lawyer concluded.

Unexpected taxes can leave your family in financial ruin. Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island and Westchester County. Call us today to schedule an appointment at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Of the American teens between the ages of 12 and 14 who admit to drinking alcohol, 30% claim the alcohol came from their parents or other adults, said a New York Family Lawyer. He added that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in a survey taken by the National Household Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2006 to 2009 discovered these findings.

The administration’s study also revealed that 709,000 American 12-to-14-year-olds have had at least one alcoholic drink in the last 30 days, which is more than 5% of that age’s population.

"People who begin drinking alcohol before the age of 15 are six times more likely than those who start at age 21 and older to develop alcohol problems. Parents and other adults need to be aware that providing alcohol to children can expose them to an increased risk for alcohol abuse and set them on a path with increased potential for addiction." An official from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration said.

A New York Criminal Lawyer asked if providing these teens with booze truly increases their risk for alcoholism.
Studies connect young drinking to alcoholism in some cases but there is no solid proof.

Important factors to consider, according to Queens Family Lawyers, are whether or not children are growing up in a home with an alcoholic. Often times the genetics of alcoholics leads to more impulsive children, who are more likely to try drinking at an earlier age or aren’t supervised as well.

Other research indicates that teens that drink with their parents tend to have fewer alcohol-related problems than other kids. This, expert’s stress, is not the same as providing alcohol for a teen party. Drinking as a family at mealtime or in a religious atmosphere is associated with lower levels of drinking problems.

In another study in 2004 where 6,000 people were surveyed, it was clear that children who were exposed to alcohol with a parent were 30% less likely to binge drink than children who drank with no parental involvement or approval.

The SAMHSA hopes to send the clear message that treating alcohol as an “ineradicable evil” is more dangerous than taking away its novelty.

“Demystifying alcohol may be better for us than demonizing it,” the study concluded.

If you have a family law matter, it is important to speak with a skilled lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance. We will answer your questions and provide you with a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York City, including Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Staten Island and Brooklyn. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County.

No longer do you need to spend thousands of dollars getting a divorce, says a New York Family Lawyer. You do not even have to hire an attorney to represent you, not if you use the company “Affordable Divorce” located out of Houston, Texas.

The company was started in 1998 by business partners Equator Turner and Jimisu Balko. Turner is an attorney out of Texas.

“There’s really no reason – I hope I’m not stepping on anyone’s toes – to have an attorney stand there and hold your hand as long as it is a simple uncontested divorce,” said Balko.

The key to this kind of divorce is that you do-it-yourself. The company you use will help you get started, but you are on your own after that. The divorcee is responsible for making all of their own calls, filing the correct paperwork, and representing themselves in court. They would also serve their spouse with divorce papers.

With “Affordable Divorce,” both spouses have to have an uncontested divorce. It means that there are no disagreements about the divorce decisions or issues of property or child support, the person can use “Affordable Divorce.”

Divorce can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500, a New York Custody Lawyer reported. The price depends on the case and the price can even be more than that because of hidden charges or unforeseen compilations with either the court or a loved one.

“Affordable Divorce” is not the only place you can go to get lower divorce rates. Simply checking the Internet, anyone can find several low-cost divorce prices. There are even prices as low as $199. With programs such as “Affordable Divorce,” you do not have the privilege to consult your lawyer if a question may appear.

Allow Stephen Bilkis and Associates to help you with all of your divorce needs. Our legal team will walk you through the entire process without allowing you to make a mistake or miss a deadline.

A student and her family got the best kind of present from the government recently, believes a New York Family Lawyer. The 18 year old in the family, who had applied to colleges and universities, was set to be deported back to their home country of Peru. However, immigration officials alerted the student that she and her family could remain in the US because she had been accepted in to UC Berkeley.

The family only found out about the reprieve days before it was scheduled to happen. The mother had already been arrested last year when it was found out that their visas were from 2001 and they had overstayed on them. Besides the mother and daughter, there is a 16 year old brother who also gets to remain in the country. They have until the summer of 2011 to work with a lawyer and get the case settled so they can have permanent legal status in the United States or work something else out.

The 18 year old had been accepted in to the UC Berkeley School in the fall semester, but since her mother had been arrested a few months before, she could not accept the admission She remained at home and attended a local community college in order to take care of her brother and save money for upcoming court expenses. The court expenses deal with her fight to stay in the states and that of her mother’s fight.

Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates if you face a similar situation. Our skilled legal team can answer any question you have regarding a family matter or upcoming court case. Whether you are dealing with relocation, or a spousal support or visitation issue, we are here to help.

Continue reading " Student Gets Reprieve From Deportation " »

Kim Basinger and Alec Baldwin are about to end their seven year marriage.

If you or a friend or acquaintance are involved in a divorce in Nassau County, it is essential to have a Nassau Family Lawyer to represent you. Visitation, joint custody and full custody could be involved. Skilled legal counsel enables you to reach a rational solution to your family troubles. If abuse of the children is not reported, a protection order will not be needed.

There have been reports recently that the couple's marriage is on the rocks and that has been confirmed by a representative of Ms. Basinger. Kim won an Oscar and is saying that the differences between the two are not able to be resolved.

According to information released by a New York Family Lawyer, Basinger has been living in Hollywood while Baldwin has resided in NY. Ireland, 5, the daughter of the couple has been living with her mom in LA.

This is the second failed marriage for Kim Basinger. She divorced Ron Britton in 1989.

Basinger, 47, and Baldwin, 42, met while doing a movie together and then appeared together on screen in the movie, "The Getaway," which was a remake of an earlier movie.

Both Kim and Alec continue to work in the movies and TV so child support should not be an issue.

If you are going through a divorce, or need assistance with a custody or visitation issue, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and guidance. We will provide you with the real answers you need and a free consultation. We have offices throughout the New York City area, including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. On Long Island, we have locations in both Nassau County and Suffolk County, as well as Westchester County. Call us today for a free consutlation at 1-800-NY-NY-LW.

During this tax season, there are ways to get deductions, credits, and exemptions. Unfortunately, you have to know about the common tax breaks families get, expressed a New York Family Lawyer. Looking at tax data from 2009, there is $1.1 trillion worth of tax breaks in the tax code. For every taxpayer, that is around $8,000.

Families were able to reduce the amount they owed to the IRS by reporting interest to their home mortgages, receive child tax credit, deduct property taxes, and report state and local real estate taxes they paid.

If you reported your interest paid when you addressed your home mortgage as you filed your taxes, you are among 34.6 million taxpayers who saved money, a Nasau County Family Lawyer explained. 28 million taxpayers did not have to pay taxes on their Social Security and railroad pensions in 2009. They saved $24 billion on taxes.

The $1,000 per-child tax credit saved 36 million families money. Over $54 billion was saved throughout the nation. Low-income families also saw a relief in 2009. 25.7 million families received $55 billion in earned income tax credit.

Further, 40.7 million taxpayers cut their income taxes that they owed by deducting state and income taxes previously paid. They also deducted their sales and personal property tax. 40.7 million people saved $40 billion. Furthermore, 33.5 million save $21 billion on their taxes by reporting the amount of state and local real estate taxes they paid, a Queens Family Lawyer mentioned.

Charitable donations also helped 36 million families save money. They saved around $35 billion in 2009.

You would be surprised with what quality legal counsel could do for your family. Whatever you family issue you may need an attorney for, Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help you through it.

When you contact our office, we will answer the many questions you may have, and provide you with a free consultation. We have offices throughout New York., including locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. In Long Island, we have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County as well as Westchester County. Call us today to schedule your free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Emily Black Pyne was married to James L. Black, said a New York Family Lawyer. They had two children and divorced when the younger of the two, Allison, was about three years old. In their marriage dissolution agreement, Mr. Black was to pay child support for both children until they reach twenty–one. He stopped paying when the eldest, Rhonda, was sixteen and the youngest was twelve years-old. According to Mr. Black, this was because about two months before he stopped paying, which was Christmas time, he asked for visitation, but he was denied by Ms. Pyne.

From the time of the divorce to about nine years after, Mr. Black was working internationally and most of the time out of the country, so he had very few visitations with his children at most two to three days a year. At the time, when he asked for the Christmas visit, he had already left the international employment and was living near Ms. Pyne and the kids. After the visit was denied, he consulted a lawyer and sent a demand for regular scheduled visitation. A New York Custody Lawyer said that it disturbed Ms. Pyne, her new husband and the children as Mr. Black has not had that amount of visitation before. In addition, Rhonda who was sixteen at the time was in counseling and therapy because she was diagnosed as having agoraphobia.

Both Rhonda and Allison said they did not want to see Mr. Black. Rhonda, who was doing well in school, was also having a hard time with everyday living. She was thinking as well that Mr. Black may have been abusive to her and was afraid of him. For Allison, who was twelve, she felt rejected by Mr. Black and disliked him. Ms. Pyne had offered therapy for her to be able to reconcile with Mr. Black, but the child refused. Ms. Pyne did not want to force her children to doing anything, so she did not push, according to testimony read by a Nassau County Custody Lawyer.

Ms. Pyne filed a motion for contempt because Mr. Black was not able to pay child support. She filed this twelve years after Mr. Black stopped paying. The decision of the courts was to deny it. A Queens Family Lawyer found out that both children were now over twenty-one years old. The lower court and the Court of Appeals reasoned that both parties were at fault. One did not pay for the child support, and the other did not asking for it fearing the demand of the other for visitation rights. The court said that the children’s welfare was not jeopardized even without the child support. With the unwritten agreement not to sue each other for child support and visitation, the court further says the non-payment is supported.
Divorce cause relief and problems to people affected especially the children who are part of it.

Although the court places the welfare of the child first, there are instances that even if you argue with such reasoning investigation may show differently. You may be entitled to compensation for your children, or you may not be.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates have an experienced who will give you your options for the protection of your children’s rights and compensation if entitled. We have offices Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Manhattan in New York. We are in Suffolk County and Nassau County and in Westchester County in Long Island. We will provide you with legal assistance and make sure your children’s welfare is protected. For a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Child visitation and child custody are cases that are very frequently occurring, especially in the states. The details of the case are not easy especially when the rights and the benefits of the children are the ones at stake. In this particular case, the grandparents are the ones who are involved in the case. This case involves the couple Diane and David Saul who are the maternal grandparents of the child who was born out of wedlock.

The said child was born around October of 1994 and lived with his mother and her parents. The father lived separately with his own parents since the couple was not married. When the child reached about 8 months old, the mother filed an action to demand child support for the child from the father. The father succumbed to this but the mother was killed in an accident when the child was two. This scenario led for the child to live with his father which started the issue between the parents of the mother and the father.

The grandparents are fighting for the right to visit since according to a New York Visitation Lawyer, this should be granted when one or both parents are already dead or if the child was born without his parents getting married. However, the conflict arises when the point of the father having the right to same privacy level is raised especially since the mother has already passed away. The points raised may be too hard to handle especially when all parties involved only have the interest to protect the child. The court is only after giving the rights to those who will not cause harm to the overall well being of the child.

The parents have all the right to their children until of course they grow up as adults and decide on their own. A New York Family Lawyer said that the grandparents relied heavy on a Spence case similar to this. But they forgot that with that case, the grandparents had previous case filed already against the father in the past and such intervened with the present case of the visitation rights. In this case of the Sauls, there may have been a paternity action filed by the deceased mother way back in 1995, but it is not pending. And the father has proven to have obeyed strictly to the rule of child support.

Hence, it became hard for the grandparents to demand for the rights to visit the child unless the father himself would finally open his doors for his child to see his own grandparents in the mother’s side. The decision for this case may have sounded very unfair and unjust but according to the laws, the fight could have been more solid if their daughter who is now deceased have been married to the father of their grandchild. The fact that he was conceived out of wedlock was the downfall of the entire case.

Do not let anything separate you from your child or let anything ruin your relationship with your family. It can be easy to understand the proceedings of such cases with the help skilled legal counsel. It does not always have to be that difficult to be able to spend time with your loved ones or even get to be with them for as long as you want.

Whether you need assistance with an order for protection, a paternity issue, or a grandparents rights case, contact our office for sound legal guidance and a free consultation today.

According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, child support calculations vary and usually depend on both the parents’ net income, the cost of caring for the child as well as allowance for health maintenance as well as daily needs. Also, most of the time, when a husband and wife separates, animosity is always present and provisions for child support and visitations are always taken for granted. Although a trial court may provide written orders for these, it is important that when two parents divorce, they must continue to be responsible and continue constant communication with their children even after the marriage is formally dissolved. This case, as explained by one of our senior New York Family Lawyers is about awarding reasonable visitation rights to non-custodial parents as well as the proper calculation of their child support.

The parties were joined together in marriage sometime in August 1990 and 16 years later, the wife filed for a divorce wherein she submitted affidavits of her finances and pertinent data for the dissolution of their marriage. It was found that the wife earned a gross monthly income of more than $4800 and that she was entitled to real estate and listed a mortgage to be among the parties' debts. On the other hand, the husband was found to earn a monthly salary of at least $2300 and lists no assets. He also lists a liability of $20000 in car loans for vehicles that were already foreclosed. In addition, when the hearing was held in a trial court, the final judgment learns that the 12-year-old son was living with the Mother. She testified that the Father was always tardy during custody exchanges and that she was hesitant to let the boy be with the Father because of his unstable living conditions, which involved his current partner taking drugs, and that the Father had a bank statement that had $14000 in deposits, which the Father explained as money given by relatives.

The final judgment then included provisions that would allow the Father to alternating Friday visits from 7 to 11pm and alternating Saturday visits from 12 noon until 10pm. In addition, if the Father arrives late, with a 20-minute grace period, then his visiting access will be waived. Moreover, when the Father has found a "stable" place, then the son will be allowed to sleep over in a separate sleeping area and shall have unsupervised access. The Mother would be allowed to visit if the son sleeps in his Father's house overnight. In addition, the Mother was awarded child support of up to $560 a month as well as a monthly retroactive support of $250 which will run for 32 months. According to our Nassau County Family Lawyer, looking at these conditions simply showed that they were unreasonable and that they must be revised. Indeed, the Father challenged these conditions found in the final judgment. He questioned the limitations of his rights to visit and the amount that he needs to pay for child support and sought to reverse the decision of the trial court.

Although no court reporter was present in the trial, the lack of records of the previous hearings does not prohibit reversal of a trial court’s decision especially if the Father was able to substantiate the unreasonable final judgment. In this case, there are three independent grounds for revision found in the final judgment. First, the Father's visitation rights were unreasonable. The inclusion of a 20-minute grace period was inconsiderate and violated the right of the Father to visit. Moreover, the child's right to see his Father is also dishonored and must be removed from the final judgment. The Third District thus reversed this provision stating that the inclusion of a grace period was unnecessary and did not promote and encourage continuing contact and relationship between the Father and the son, who was still a minor during that time. The only thing that the Father was asked to do if he would be late is to notify the Mother within a reasonable time if he will not be able to meet them in the place of exchange on time or if he will not be able to meet them at all.

Whether you have a custody or visitation dispute, need an order for protection, or have a paternity issue, it is important to speak with skilled legal counsel to ensure that your rights are protected. Contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance and a free consultation.

Children are especially receptive to issues of infidelity committed by one parent against another. More so if the child actually experienced and witnessed first-hand the act of one parent being unfaithful to another. Usually, it takes a long time for a child to forget and forgive a parent's unfaithfulness. Most of the time, parents don't think that children are as affected when either of them becomes unfaithful - that they easily forget and carry on with their lives but in truth, it is the other way around. Psychological impact is great among children who think that they have been betrayed, deserted and intentionally harmed by a parent and it will not only take a very long time for them to forget, but might forever cut the ties and relationship that they have with the unfaithful one. This case, as discussed by a New York Family Lawyer, is an example where one of the children witnessed first-hand an inappropriate and hurtful conduct made by their Father.

William and Kathryn French had three children when they divorced 21 years after their marriage. The Father was a stockbroker had an income of over $100,000 in 1980. During that time, this was a lot of money. The Mother, on the other hand, had previously worked in the fashion industry and even as an assistant editor to a fashion magazine. She had two college degrees but by the time of the dissolution of marriage, she was out of work. In May 1981, the Father left the home and his eleven-year-old son moved onto a boat. After a month, the son told the mother about how frequently he observed promiscuous activities that the Father and his girlfriend were doing on the boat. This prompted the mother to file a divorce or dissolution of their marriage.

At the trial court, the Father admitted that he and his girlfriend had performed lovemaking sessions in the boat but he argued that except for one time, they were very careful not to be seen by the children. Apparently, the girlfriend's two other children were on the boat, too. The Father claimed that he was not aware that the children saw them perform sexual activities. Upon hearing this, the trial court ruled in favor of Mrs. French and she was granted petition for the marriage dissolution, she was also granted the custody of their three minor children and that the Father was prohibited to visit them. However, the trial court based its decision on the fact that the Father seemed insensitive to the pain that he subjected one of his children to and that he seemed unaware that the child felt betrayed and disillusioned by what happened. According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the Mother was further awarded with the full title and ownership of their house with equity given as lump sum alimony and rehabilitative alimony for $2000 monthly for 12 years. In addition, the court ordered the Father to deposit in an IRA or a similar account the sum of $2,000 as permanent alimony. This sum is to be increased to $4000 when the Mother gets employed.

In addition, the Father was ordered to pay for child support of $400/child/month, together with, health care costs, educational expenses and to also pay for the wife's attorney's fees. The written final judgment also included a provision to pay the first installment of the daughter's tuition from her private school where she was enrolled. The Father then moved to contend that the permanent alimony was unreasonable because the Mother did not request for an IRA account, which was otherwise proven because the Mother did apply and sought for permanent alimony. He also argued IRA contributions are applicable only to spouses who are employed and not those who are unemployed but the court found out that the trial judge's decision was contemplated upon and that it was reasonable considering the inequity of the Father and the Mother's income and earning capacity.

As to the issue of visitation, the Fourth District states that given the chance, they would have held the Father liable on the grounds of negligence - for the disregard to the feelings of the child who witnessed the illicit affair and would not have based the visitation on a minor issue of impropriety that only earned a final judgment provision of temporary prohibition of visitation rights by the Father. If the visitation was based on negligence and total disregard for the child's feelings, he would have been permanently banned from seeing the children without any means of communications whatsoever. However, the trial court's decision meant that the prohibition could be lifted if the Father appealed and was granted to visit to continue the parent-children relationship. According to the Fourth District, if the case is to be sent back to the trial court for revisions, then it must provide appropriate limitations to the visitation schedule and consider that the Father was negligent in his promiscuous engagements that resulted to one of the children seeing the sexual act.

Then, as further explained by a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, the Father claims that the trial court committed error in including all medical and dental expenses for the ex-wife and children. The District Court agreed with the Father and reversed the trial court's decision and was suggested to limit the amount to major medical expenses only. In addition, he was required to pay for the children's tuition and for half of the room and board of the children in the future, when they go to college. According to the Father, this was erroneous he will cease to be obligated to pay child support when the children reach beyond the age of eighteen. In this case, the Father failed to prove that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling against him and imposing expensive costs and child support. The District Court also found that there were no errors as to the trial court's decision to award all these to the Mother. In addition to all those aforementioned expenses, the ex-wife's attorney's fees were also to be shouldered by the Father.

Finally, in his concluding speech, the Judge suggested the appointment of a guardian ad litem, who will be an advocate for children who are at risk to being abused and neglected and that the appointed guardian must importantly, be a lawyer since he must be knowledgeable of all the legal proceedings should there be a need to represent the children and make a call for action. The trial judge must appoint the guardian ad litem to make sure that the children's rights are upheld. The appointed guardian ad litem will be able to represent the children best if he or she was trained to spot discrepancies that will allow him to thoroughly investigate and make necessary recommendations for the welfare of the children.

If you have a custody or visitation dispute, need an order for protection or are initially filing for divorce, Stephen Bilkis and Associates will provide you with one who can assist you through this difficult time and fairly and reasonably reach a settlement with your ex-partner without putting so much pressure on the children. We aim to help you settle your differences amicably and realistically to be able to protect your children from further disappointment and further psychological harm as well as continue your parent-child relationship as normal as you can even after the your marriage is dissolved because we truly care about our clients' best interests. Call our office now.

There was one particular case that a New York Family Lawyer studied which might sound not so common when it comes to cases of child custody or visitation rights. It involves the presence of two minor kids named only as I.S. and C.S. Both of their parents are already dead with their mother dying after giving birth to C.S. Following this scenario, both of them stayed in the custody of their maternal grandfather along with his wife, which went on for four months. Their father died out of a car accident.

When this happened, the two guardians provided for the primary care of the children. As all these were happening, the other set of grandparents in the side of the father, were constantly getting in touch with their grandkids as well. It did not take long before the two acting as guardians decided to file a petition to adopt their two grandkids. The two are defending in court that this is the best way they think that they can serve the kids and give them all the benefits they deserve.

It was without any doubt who also looked into this case that both were actually fit to become parents of the kids. But there was evidence discovered that before the father of the children died, he requested for his kids to be raised by his own parents; the paternal grandparents. It seemed hard to decide on this since both sets of grandparents are very loving to both kids. And it was apparent as well that the two kids also love all their grandparents, whichever parents’ side.

The court decided that the two kids deserve the love and care that both sets of grandparents can give. Now that their parents are dead, it is just right for both sets of grandparents to not be hindered in getting involved in their grandkids’ lives. This is of course regardless of where the two kids choose to stay. What the court did is to not grant the adoption request of the maternal grandparents and also deny the primary guardianship request of the other side of grandparents. The kids will remain in the usual setup of I.S. and C.S. to stay with their maternal grandparents but they cannot adopt the kids. The paternal grandparents were also given their own visitation rights to the kids.

This made the maternal grandparents to still fight it out in court saying that they are both fit to become the adoptive parents of the kids. Again, it was reemphasized that it is only the duty of the court to grant the adoption request if this would be for the greater benefits of the children. Yes, they may both be fit enough to be guardians, or moreover parents, but this could create more hassle and bias for the other set of grandparents. If they would be given the right to adopt the kids, then they will be given the power to deny visitation of the other set of grandparents; which is not ideal at all.

Cases of child visitation rights and child support or custody are very sensitive items to handle that it would be best to get the support and assistance of a reliable attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx. We also have offices in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW. Whether you need help with an adoption, an order for protection, or a visitation issue, we are here to help.

Modification of child custody cases happen in a lot of court scenarios. In fact, when you seek the counsel of an expert New York Family Lawyer, you would be surprised with the cases that you would hear having such details. A good example would be the need for a mother to modify the child custody order that would enable her to bring her son and her second child to Japan. The couple filed for divorce way back in the 80s and the agreement for custody then was for the daughter to stay with the mother and the son with the father.

The mother of the two kids got remarried with a Lt. Commander in the navy. After some time, her new husband will be assigned in the air base of Japan where he will stay for a total of two years. With their family to be brought with him, the mother thought of taking her son with her and the only way to do this is to request for the court to remove her ex-husband’s custody of their children.

One of the Nassau County Family Lawyers who was familiar with this case attested that this would require the inclusion of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. This only means that the custody of the children involved should always be set best for the welfare and greater interest of the children. The mother fought for her kids in the financial aspect. She proved to court that her level of employment and finances have considerably improved that she is already ready and capable of taking care of her two kids and not just her daughter anymore.

A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer who had the chance to learn more about the details of this case said that the mother also emphasized the times when her son seemingly became estranger with her that they never enjoyed the times she visits him. There were no proof that the father has something to do with this despite claims that he may be telling bad stories about his ex-wife in front of his son then. After sometime, when the mother and the son’s relationship improved, she thought that it would be best to not make their relationship be estranged again.

Both parties though agreed that traveling abroad would benefit both their kids. Even the father thought that it was better for the kids to have experience traveling and studying abroad than just staying in Jacksonville and wait for their mother to visit them after two years. With this, the mother emphasized more the importance of living together as one family in one unit and that this is the only way for her to be able to practice being a full time mother. Besides, she is permissible with the idea of her kids also spending time with their real father during the summer months of the year. The custody was awarded to the mother.

Such winning cases of child custody is something that you can also experience in your own case with the help from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Whether you are to file a divorce or fight for your rights and of your kids, or need an order for protection, you can be sure to rely on us. You and your loved ones need not suffer from all the stress that broken families get.

When families break down, it is the children who suffer so much. When they start growing up in an environment that is unresolved, they also tend to create chaotic environments on their own. If we care for the future generations of this country, then it is important that we help each other out in informing families on how it is really to raise one. You would learn a lot of values and rights when you get to review some child visitation rights cases explored by a credible New York Family Lawyer.

This case was between the Department of Children and Families versus a mother who is not capable of taking care of her own son. The mother was hidden in the initials of B.M. The child is a four-year-old boy with the initials of B.B. He was brought to the DCF for a shelter petition last 2006. It all started with the mother and child deciding to live alone away from the father who mistreats and abused his wife. In September 12 of 2006, she left her son in a neighbor’s house and promised that she would return soon. But she did not and only came back for her son the afternoon of the next day.

Because of this non-compliance according to a New York Visitation Lawyer she was evicted two days after and she even evaded possible confrontation with the WID. A history of violence in the home was traced and both parents had restraining orders. By September 18, the mother was allowed visitation that is supervised about two times in a week. But on the following month, reports say that she has already missed three appointed visits with which she gave three unreasonable excuses as well. First, she simply overslept. Second, she had to go to a particular doctor’s appointment. Third, she needed to do another follow up with her doctor.

At this point, the New York Custody Lawyer found out that it would be the father who would take custody of the child for a while. The mother was still allowed to visit the child but with proper supervision. The mother was tasked to do the following like attend parenting classes and go through an evaluation of substance abuse. She is also to go through complete psychological evaluation, individual counseling and even sign a consent along with attending violence for victims workshop classes.

If the mother would fail her ordered responsibilities, she would not be allowed of any kind of contact with the child. She must also be able to present herself to the court first clean of any substance abuse and after having negative results for her drug screening. The custody of the child to the father was also modified since the father was guilty of domestic violence still of the new wife. After sometime though, a witness emerged from the Child Net organization saying that the kid is doing well with his father and stepmother already. But as with the mother, she has not been able to comply to her requirements and hence she was not allowed completely to visit her child. She was still given the chance for sporadic visitation for the court believes that the child still has the need to see his own mother.

If you need some help with any kind of family oriented legal cases, you should start getting in touch with an ideal Suffolk County Family Lawyer so that you can be able to understand the entire process. The office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates offers great a strong team of legal professionals who can help you in giving justice to your rights and your loved ones.

Many families truly honor the presence of grandparents who play a large role too in influencing the younger ones in each family. Besides, there would not be any grandparents day if there are not important, right? However, it might surprise you that there are lots of child visitation rights tackled by a reliable New York family lawyer which include grandparents fighting for their rights to see their grandchildren especially if one of the parents have already passed away. In this case, both parents have not died but are separated instead. This involved the appeal of the maternal grandmother of the child by the name of Mona Chapin against the father Jason Forbes.

The grandmother was first allowed to visit her grandchild of one week during the summer season and about five weekends in a year. But according to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer everything changed when the father of the child started to remarry. After this second wedding, the court found out that he and his new wife are depriving already the visitation rights of the grandmother in the middle part of 2002. In 2003, the mother of the child agreed to give full parental rights and even allowed the stepmother to adopt her own son. But all these decisions were not relayed to the grandmother involved.

When the grandmother knew about the adoption plan, she filed contempt against the father for the shortcoming of not informing her and this according to a Nassau County Family Lawyer. When the general master reviewed the role of the grandmother, they discovered that she was consistent then of fulfilling her visitation rights and that the father truly had a mistake in that point of not informing her. This case then was decided to base it all on whichever would be for the best interest of the child.

When it comes to grandparent visitation rights, even if a remarriage is done or the child suddenly becomes adopted by the step parent, this should not put a stop to her rights to visit. Unless the reason of the father is valid that the visits of the maternal grandmother will not give his son any benefit at all. It was further researched that the grandmother and the child were very close to each other and if their relationship would be put to a halt, then this could affect the child emotionally. The stepmother on the other hand knew about the previous visitation rights of the grandma.

With the established relationship of the grandmother and the child, the court can say that this can be for the best interest of the child involved. Anything that would not be of the best interest mean that it could harm the child in any way possible. However, to say that not seeing the grandmother would harm the child is way too early. The rights of the father for privacy was respected by the court and his decision to stop his child from seeing the maternal grandmother was granted.

If you want to know more about the proper legal procedures of such cases, you can start contacting the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Family-oriented cases are not just limited to child custody and rights for they also have a legal team can help you out with mending couple relationships or help you regain your right and the justice you deserve. You are also sure to learn a lot from the process. Whether you need an order for protection, have a paternity issue, or need assistane with a visitation matter, we are ready to help ensure that your rights are protected. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.