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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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.
]]>A few days after the decision, Ms. Sullivan asked the court for clarification of the dependent claim eligibility of each parent. Before this could be determined, Ms. Sullivan died in a car accident. Elizabeth Sullivan, the baby’s maternal grandmother, filed a Motion to Intervene and for the Award of Reasonable Visitation to Grandparent and was asking for a decision granting her the right to get involved in the paternity suit filed by her daughter. This is limited to certain situations and one of them is the death of a parent or both parents. To answer this, the father filed a motion to dismiss.
The lower courts ruled that the grandmother cannot intervene in the paternity suit because her daughter is already deceased, and the determination will not make a different as to can file for a dependent exemption. The visitation right was also dismissed. This was appealed by grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts.
In their determination, the Supreme Court cited the case of Beagle vs. Beagle and Von Eiff. They said that the granting of visitation to grandparents is a violation to the privacy of the parent in rearing their child. Aside from the death of a parent or both parents, there should be an apparent reason to think the child’s best interest is to have the grandparent have visitation rights as he is too young. If there is an issue of the child being harmed, the court could also intervene in the decision of the parent in deciding what is best for the child. The Supreme Court says in this case, there is no need and no evidence to show harm.
A New York Order for Protection Lawyer is aware that a separation already affects a child’s familial stability and much more if a parent dies. The welfare of the child now needs support not only from the surviving parent but even from grandparents. The law supports this, and a good counsel will be able to present this well.
Whether you are a grandparent seeking visitation rights or a parent involved in a custody dispute, the law will have it covered. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have experienced legal counsel who will give you your options for the protection of your children’s rights and your rights for visitation or to prevent visitation as your decision as a parent. 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.
It is important to note according to the that the child who is a minor was born right out of wedlock. If this is the case, there is a great chance that the child can be allowed to be visited too by the grandparents. But it is the right of any of the parents to not allow this especially when it comes to the aspect of familial privacy. This term about the rights of the parent to raise their kids without others interfering in the way. If there comes a time that they get into a disagreement, it should be taken to court and they will be the one to decide which would be best for the child.
Some researches done by a respected Nasau County Divorce Lawyer that there are cases visitation rights are given to parents only if it would be the best interest for the child involved. And it is very important to note that this scenario would only be allowed if the parents have both left their right for familial privacy by letting the court settle whatever disagreement they may have. But if it is the court’s decision to allow the grandparent to visit regularly, then this does not violate any of the parents’ privacy rights.
In the end with this case between Daphne Spence and Erica Stewart, the court allowed the grandparents visitation rights because the parents of the kids were not married. The court only looks after the best interest of the child that it would help the kid a lot to have additional support from a close relative. With the father being the parent on this case to appear more responsible than the mother, then the paternal grandparent of the kids has all the right to show concern too to their own grandchild.
Child visitation rights for grandparents can be truly complicated according to any New York Order for Protection Lawyer. It is very important that you do the right steps properly for if not, the consequences you would face can be overly devastating. You may end up not having any right to visit your grandkids which is very unfortunate. It helps a lot if you would do your own research first or seek the help of a credible law office like Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You can be sure to find an expert legal guidance to help you out understand more the details of your case. Whether you need assistance with a child support matter, a paternity suit, or a grandparent's rights case, we are here to provide legal guidance and a free consultation. We have office locations throughout the New York area, including locations in Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County.
It is not that easy to obtain your visitation rights especially if you are a grandparent but it can be much easier if you would try getting in touch with our office. Even when you fail the first time, you should never give up easily for this is what your lawyer would advise you to do as well. In every legal proceeding, a lot of courage is beneficial especially if it is your loved ones and your time with them is the thing that is at stake. Just make sure that you always keep the best interest of your grandchildren into consideration at all times.
For the first three year of Victoria’s life, she lived with Gerald, who treated her as his own child. Sometimes, she and her mother resided with other men. May was when Victoria was born, they lived with Gerald. October of the same year, Gerald moved to New York for business, and Carole and Victoria were in California. End of October, both Carole and Michael had tests done to check the paternity of Victoria and found the 98.07% probability she was Michael’s. January of the following year, Carole visited Michael. In March, she left and resided with Scott K. and in the same year with Gerald again, but by fall she was back with Scott.
November after the year Victoria was born, Michael filed a filiation action to get visitation rights and determine paternity because Carole was not allowing him access to Victoria. About six months after, Carole filed a motion for summary judgment. At this time, she had been with Gerald since March, which lasted until July. After, she was with Michael again and this time she asked her lawyers to withdraw the motion for summary judgment. For the next eight months, they lived together and April, before Victoria’s third birthday, Carole and Michael signed a stipulation that Michael was Victoria’s natural father. The month after, Carole left Michael and ordered her lawyers not to file the stipulation. She moved back with Gerald.
The same month that Carole and Victoria left, Michael filed a case seeking visitation rights.
The court asked a psychologist to look into Victoria, Gerald, Michael and Carole’s state of mind for them to determine if Michael should be granted visitation. The recommendation was yes, so Michael was granted limited visitation while the case is pending. According to a Gerald intervened and moved for a summary judgment saying there were no issues that should be determined in a trial for Victoria’s paternity. The court granted the motion, and it was also affirmed by the higher courts as the law says if a child is born to a married woman living with her husband who is not sterile or impotent, then the child is presumed theirs. This can only be contradicted by the husband or the wife. There can also be no custody or visitation issue as the court cannot say that Victoria has two fathers.
Sometimes, there are really cases that will seem like a movie and a child torn in between. Determining who the father is legally is something that law has provisions for. Determining the rights of people for visiting a child or deciding for a child the welfare of the child is still placed first.
Whether you have a paternity issue, custody battle, or need an order for protection, Stephen Bilkis and Associates have experienced legal counsel who can help. 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. In protecting your rights as a parent, we also see to it that your child’s welfare is not impaired. For a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.
]]>By September, six months after the filing, the court had finalized a decision. In terms of the visitation schedule, they had adopted the one proposed by the Ms. Chavis without any variation. This is even after they said that they will make a compromise schedule and not adopt just one. In the judgment, it said that there will be no overnight visitation for some time as an eleven month-old child has some emotional needs and physical limitations that make it inadvisable to do. According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the court sees the want of the father and the grandparents to form a bond with the child early on, but because they are far, it will be hard for an infant even a toddler.
The father, Mr. Adamson, in the lower court’s decision gets a few hours of visitation where Ms. Chavis lives. This is done on alternating weekends. Only by the age two does he get an overnight visit, which is only once every month. It is restricted further to Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon. By age three, he can already take the child for an overnight, not a weekend visit, outside the State. Extended visits are only to be done beginning the summer before the child enters first grade. There is also no provision for the visitation of the grandparents. Mr. Adamson appealed against this ruling.
The Court of Appeals found merit in Mr. Adamson’s claims regarding the visitation schedule. The lower court showed that it had applied the “tender years” doctrine, which was already abolished. This was the rule favoring the mother if the child is very young. They said that both parents have equal rights as to the deciding where their child lives and studies unless one is proven as incapable of taking care of the child. It has been proven that a father can take care of his infant child even without the mother. Having the father wait several years for longer visits deprives the father of having a meaningful relationship with his child. The reasoning that a child is too young to be apart from his mother is an error. The court reversed the decision.
Each parent has an equal right to the rearing of their child. This is only changed if one is proven to be unfit. Stephen Bilkis and Associates sees to it that you as a parent have your rights protected as well as the well-being of the child. The determination is now done with newer studies to decide what is best for a child.
Whether you need an order for protection, or have a paternity or visitation dispute, Stephen Bilkis and Associates have the experience that will provide you with options when you are in the middle of a visitation rights case. 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 that makes sure your rights as a parent and your child’s welfare are protected. For a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.
The father of the abused children claimed to have done everything he could to keep custody of them back in 2004. He and his wife allegedly abused drugs and engaged in prostitution prior to the charges.
"This is hard," the grieving father said Tuesday outside his apartment. "Imagine what I could be feeling right now."
He added, "I never wanted to give up my parental rights, but they took my kids away. I did everything they asked me to do, but they took them away anyway.”
The children’s aunt and uncle had originally wanted to take care of the twins but the nature of the case and the charges against the parents made it very difficult for the state to allow this.
In a petition from the state, the father was found unfit because of domestic violence, abandonment and medical neglect. The man confessed to molesting a little girl in a taped interview with police as well. Officials are unsure where the mother is now, according to a New York Family Lawyer. “I haven’t seen her in years,” her husband said. “She suffered from several medical illnesses and had to take a lot of medication.”
The man’s children were found in the adopted father’s truck. The girl was dead and in a bag in the back of the truck and the boy was found in the front seat having a seizure with a chemical material on his body.
Police and the state Department of Children and Families are currently investigating the girl’s cause of death and the children’s living conditions, explained a New York Criminal Lawyer.
Caseworkers had visited the home and had described a healthy family environment. Yet, according to school records, teachers had filed many complaints that the children were dirty, injured and hungry.
Hoping for a fresh start the sad father said, "I just want my son to heal and get back to his life and then I want to be with my son.”
He added that he hoped his sister and brother-in-law would be granted temporary custody until he was found fit again and could fully recover.
Abuse and neglect are serious charges for a family and so difficult for children to endure. New York Family Attorneys specialize in Family Law and will help your family through difficult times. New York Family Attorneys can prepare your case and argue your side.
The couple had only recently moved into the building due to a fire that had occurred at their former residence. The neighbors told a New York Family Attorney that since the couple had been unable to obtain a loan to assist them after the fire that the stress in their relationship became increasingly clear.
This stress continued to the point that police were dispatched to the couple’s residence on at least three occasions, with the latest being on Sunday, the day before this latest incident. The argument had reportedly been so bad, that the woman fled the couple’s apartment to go to her sister’s apartment that is in the same building. It was at this point that police were called to the scene, during which they filed a domestic violence report and then left, witnesses told a Nassau County Family Lawyer.
According to sources, the woman had returned the following day, Monday, in order to get some of her belongings. While her brother-in-law waited for her outside the man’s apartment, is when the woman’s husband reportedly injected her with the poison. After her 41-year old husband injected her with the poison, he is said to have drank an unspecified amount of the liquid himself. The woman immediately yelled from the window to her waiting brother-in-law for help before she is alleged to have fallen into a coma. She died the next day.
As part of the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) ongoing investigation, they are attempting to learn how the man was able to obtain the poison, which has been identified as cyanide. Cyanide is commonly has many legitimate uses including mining, industrial, jewelry making, during the final stages of making bronze sculptures, and many more. It is usually not readily available to the general public due to its toxicity.
Whatever your family issue, legal counsel can provide the support and help that you need. Whether you are going through a divorce, have a vistation dispute, or need an order for protection, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They are knowledgeable and skilled in cases involving child custody, paternity, prenuptial agreements, and so much more. Contact a us so you and your family will be better prepared for tomorrow.
The pair filed complaints stating the two owners had refused to rent them facility because they were gay. The couple alleged it violates the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public, explained a New York Family Lawyer.
One of the owners of the bed and breakfast said, “I only host traditional weddings and not civil unions.” He reiterated in a later email, “At this point we will just be doing traditional weddings.”
The other owner was a bit more combative with the couple and told them what they were doing was “wrong and against the bible.” The man picked out a few verses and read them to the couple.
The couple’s attorney plans to use the bed and breakfast’s websites that boast, “elegant accommodations for pleasure or business, weddings, corporate retreats, anniversary parties, fund-raising events, bridal and baby showers and celebrations” as evidence of their discrimination against the couple.
In an e-mail, the more emphatic bed and breakfast owner wrote, “We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois.”
It went on to say, “We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate.”
When he was reminded of the new law the owner simply responded, “The Bible does not state opinions, but facts. It contains the highest laws pertinent to man. It trumps Illinois law, United States law, and global law should there ever be any.”
Several days later he allegedly sent one of the gay men an email with links to Bible passages that said, “ I know you may not want to hear this, but I thought I would send along a couple of verses in Romans 1 detailing how the Creator of the Universe looks at the gay lifestyle. It’s not too late to change your behavior.”
When questioned by reporters the gay recipient said, “If they’d just sent the e-mail back and said, ‘Hey, I’m uncomfortable with this,’ or ‘I wouldn’t be the best (place) for this, but I wish you luck’, we wouldn’t have minded but they have no right to talk to us like that.”
The man’s partner concluded, “We don’t want to go to the clerk’s office and get it done by a Justice of the Peace. We want a place to remember.”
Understanding your rights and being treated fairly are part of what makes this country great. Stephen Bilkis and Associates understand the laws that protect you and your family from discrimination. Whether you are filing for divorce, or need an order for protection, have a paternity issue, or custody battle, contact us for guidance. We will ensure that your rights are protected.
]]>