New York Family Law Blog

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.

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.

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.

Every New York Family Lawyer has somehow encountered the common case of a grandparent seeking for visitation rights of his or her grandchildren. And in some states in the country, it becomes all the more complicated since some laws do not allow such visitation when one of the parents would like their privacy to be respected. The mother of the child involved in this case who was kept unnamed already filed a paternity action for child support from the father but he also sought visitation rights for his own mother.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent Rights Issue" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Denies Proposed Relocation of Parent" »