New York Family Law Blog

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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" »

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.

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.

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.

In September 1999, Frances Adrienne Sullivan gave birth to a son. A New York Family Lawyer said, after, she filed a paternity action against Landon Cole Sapp. This was to set custody, parental responsibility and child support for her son. By March 2001, the final decision was that Mr. Sapp was the natural father of the child. The parental responsibility was to be shared by both mother and father. The court said that the child should live with his mother, with the Mr. Sapp provided with reasonable access to his child. He was to pay child support, which he could also declare as an exemption for tax purposes for even numbered tax years and the odd number for Ms. Sullivan.

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.

In a story that was like it was made for a movie, Victoria D. daughter of Carole D. was the one who had two men claiming to be determined as her father. Carole was married to Gerald D. when she gave birth to Victoria. Carole was an international model, and Gerald was a top executive in a French oil firm. He had always said he was Victoria’s father, although tests showed that more than 98% probability, she was Michael H.’s. Carole had an affair with Michael while married to Gerald. A New York Family Lawyer said Victoria was the fruit of that adulterous affair.

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.

A convicted abuser that lost custody of his children more than eight years ago, recently heard the sad news that one of his twin children had been murdered by her adopted father and the other so severely abused, that he remains hospitalized.

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.

Two men, who had been long-time companions, were thrilled when civil unions became legalized in Illinois. They immediately began planning their celebration but came to find, that although the state accepted their sexual orientation, two bed and breakfast facility owners had not.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Louisiana Visitation Issue" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" »

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Child Visitation Matter" »

A couple was married for about five years. A year into their marriage, the wife gave birth to their only child. A New York Family Lawyer said that in the final judgment in the dissolution of their marriage, the mother was given custody of their child. The father was granted visitation rights and based on their monthly income, ordered to pay $150 per month for child support plus $50 per month for the months before the final judgment.

In the year that followed the finalizing of the divorce, each party had brought numerous motions for contempt. The mother claimed the father was not paying child support. The father alleged visitation was being withheld. By December of the year that followed the dissolution, the father filed a petition without counsel to modify the provision for the child support saying because of illness and inability to pay. From what a Westchester Custody Lawyer found out, the father was able to show evidence of his illness and that his income has been reduced to $200 from $800. The $200 was coming from welfare benefits. This being the court still found him in wilful contempt and denied his motion to modify the child support. Part of the ruling was to reduce the child support to $75 each month even if the modification was denied. The court said as well, that visitation should be reinstated if father paid the May child support by May 2, and keeps it current.

Another was order was issued May 5 stating that the visitation is not to happen until he complies with the previous order and shows his child-support payments to be current. There was no record where the court says visitation was terminated, previously. The father appealed for a review of this ruling. He questions the order of the Trial Court where it made the payment of the child support the condition for visitation.

Generally, said the Court of Appeals, visitation is not be denied or changed because of non-payment of the child support. There are some cases however, where if the court finds the willful and intentional refusal to pay the child support affects the child’s welfare negatively, they do terminate visitation. The question now here is the non-payment by the father is wilful and intentional. The Court of Appeals found that the Trial Court recognized the decrease in his income of which showed his inability to pay was not by his choice. They, therefore, reversed the order for terminating visitation.

The court knows that sometimes it is circumstances that prevent a parent from doing their obligation, like in paying child support. Which is why the law has provisions to determine if the parent just did not want to pay such obligation or they cannot. It is still the welfare of the child that is placed first.

There is little doubt that in a divorce case, particularly where there are children involved, emotions run high. These cases can be complex, and involve other issues such as an order for protection, abuse allegations, granparents rights and more. If you are involved in a divorce, it is important to secure legal guidance as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Whether the Nonpayment of Support Effects Visitation Rights" »

Two years after a couple got married, their first child was born. After about four years of being married, the couple got divorced. Custody was given to the wife, and the court gave the father reasonable visitation rights. The wife got married again shortly after the divorce. She moved to Phoenix, Arizona after and did not notify the father, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The father contacted missing children agencies in an effort to find the mother and the children, as he did not know where they went. The wife never tried to contact husband to get child support, even though she knew where was. After five years, she contacted father and told him where the children were. He resumed the child-support payments and visitation immediately. Two years after resuming contact, the wife filed a claim for child support in arrears.

In her claim, she reasoned that even if there was interference with the visitation, it is still the obligation of the non-custodial parent to pay child support. Child support and visitation are independent of each other. According to a Staten Island Visitation Lawyer, the Trial Court found the mother guilty of laches, which means she negligent in her making the claim. The court said she is not entitled to the child support in arrears. The mother appealed against this saying, she, being guilty of laches is not an appropriate reason not to grant her petition.

The Court of Appeals said laches is an appropriate reason for child support. The court needs to be equitable in their decision so to determine laches, they look at the length and reasonableness of the delay in seeking payments. A Staten Island Custody Lawyer said there is also the issue of interference or denial of visitation. The wife took the children out of state and did not tell the father where they were for five years, at the time she could have already made a claim. When she re-established contact, it still took her two years to make a claim. She moved her children somewhere the other parent did not so the court is not able to enforce any petition. The children were considered as concealed from the father. This further supports the excuse of the father in not paying child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision saying, in the seven years, she knew where the father was and could have claimed, and she prevented the legal rights of the father to visitation.

The courts do not want a party to be penalized for an action made by another. In cases involving parents and child support, the courts look at both parties. If the other prevented the payment or if their action caused the non-payment, they may not be entitled to child support in arrears. If they had taken too long to make a claim for the child support, then, it may be deemed as a release of obligation for the other party. This depends on the situation.

There is little argument that going through a divorce is an extremely stressful experience. Emotions run high, particularly when there are children involved. Divorce cases can be very complex, and include many secondary issues. You may find that an order for protection is required, or that there is an issue regarding grandparents rights or paternity. To ensure that your rights and the rights of your children are protected, it is important to obtain legal counsel as possible. The sooner you speak to a lawyer, the sooner counsel can set to work and ensure that your case is handled with the compassion and care it deserves.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Child Support Issue" »

A mother was awarded custody her son, when the couple divorced. The boy was only two years old at that time. Less than a year later, the mother died. The father immediately assumed custody of their son less than a month after her death. He filed a petition to change the decree to give him custody and this was granted about three months after, said a New York Family Lawyer. The order showed he had already remarried, and that he allows visitation for the maternal grandmother, with his child.

When the grandmother received the child for a visit, she asked a different court to award her temporary custody of the child. This was granted by the court and there was no order from the previous court to transfer jurisdiction to them. According to a New York City Custody Lawyer, a hearing took place to hear the father's side. After the review and the testimony of the father, the custody was given to the father, and the court ordered that the child be delivered to him. Visitation was not included in the ruling.

The grandmother filed a motion to modify the divorce decree about a year later so she could have visitation rights. The court granted her those rights and said she can have the child for thirty hours a week in her home or anywhere else. If the parties are unable to agree on the schedule, it was set to be from noon on Saturdays until six in the evening on Sundays. A New York City Visitation Lawyer mentioned as well that the court instructed both parties not to take the child outside their jurisdiction without their approval. Another two years passed before the grandmother filed another motion with the court against the father for contempt. She claimed that the father denied her visitation for the second week of February that year. In her petition, she said he announced his intention to deny her visitation in the future.

The allegations were not challenged by the father, rather his attorneys filed a response saying boy was already adopted by the father's current wife. This was the reason the claims made by the grandmother is barred and cannot be enforced. They stated, the continuance of the visitation was just voluntary but the visits outside their home are proving to have negative effects to their child’s health and well being. This is why they want the visitation to be restricted to their house. They provided medical reports. The contempt was reversed, and was appealed. The Court of Appeals in their review said, the previous decree was not affected by the adoption, since the father did not follow it at the time he is in contempt. As for the future visitation, the contempt should not be needed as the parents, father and stepmother, can already determine the frequency of the visitation. They should not deprive the child of the benefit of being with his grandmother for whom he has a great affection for.

The parent of a child, natural or adoptive, has the same rights in deciding for the welfare of their child. This does not affect previous rulings to the natural parent for visitation. The court has always held that the best interest of the child is the priority.

Going though a divorce is never easy. At whatever stage of the process you find yourself in, it is important to ensure that your rights, and the rights of your child are protected at all times. Whether you are just initally filing for a divorce, require an order for protection, or have a custody dispute, it is important to consult with legal counsel as soon as possible.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation" »

This case begins where a couple was divorced, and the mother got the custody of their two children. The children were fourteen years old and twelve years old respectively at that time of the divorce. The father was given visitation right of not less than eighty-five days per annum. The alimony set was at $1,800 per month and for child support it was at $1,000 per month per child. A NYC Visitation Lawyer said the mother did not comply with this order, which made the father file a petition for modification of the alimony to $1,000 and decreasing the child support to $300 per month per child.

It was determined that the mother was making their children decide whether they want to see their father or not. It is between them and their father, who lives in Florida. She does not discourage them to see him, but she does not encourage it as well. The Trial Court granted the father's petition, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The mother filed a motion for contempt of court against her husband saying he is not paying the alimony. She asked the court as well to award the alimony in arrears and to have it continued. According to a New York Family Lawyer, the Domestic Relations Commissioner reviewed the file and found that the father was in arrears for the amount of $3,600 until that month, and the next regular payment should be made the following month. He testified he did not pay the alimony because he was not able to visit with their child. The older one was already emancipated. The mother, he said, refused to discuss visitation with their daughter. He did not deny that he could make the payment as the amount was deposited to an escrow account. He raised the same issue as with his claim where because of the denial of visitation, he did not pay the alimony.

The court found that in this situation, it is not a defense for non-payment of the alimony, and he was asked to pay the arrears. The father appealed against this order and the succeeding ruling denying his claim that his son had been emancipated. He was told to pay the alimony and the child support. The Court of Appeals addressed two issues. The first with regard to the decision of the Trial Court that denial of visitation was not a defense to not paying the alimony. They agreed with the father, this was an error. They said that as long as this withholding does not negatively affect the child’s welfare, the court could grant this relief. The mother can appeal once she has already complied with the court’s ruling. A NYC Visitation Lawyer said, as for the emancipation of his son, the court found insufficient evidence. They reversed the order to pay the alimony in arrears and affirmed the payment of child support.

An NYC Order of Protection Lawyer commented that the court has the right to approve the withholding of child support or alimony, as long as it is not detrimental to a child’s welfare. In cases for visitation, child support or custody, the best interest of the child is always placed first in the consideration. They try to make sure as well that the orders are equitable to both parties.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Nonpayment of Alimony" »

Child visitation cases are very common legal battles encountered by a Brooklyn Visitation Lawyer, when children of separated parties become subjects of exchanges of custodies.

A visitation exchange happens when a child moves from one parent to another at a time specified in custody exchanges judgment. In this case, as reviewed by one of our lawyers, the Father of the child appeals to a higher court for a reversal of a prior court's decision that held the Father in contempt for letting their child fly to from New York to Florida alone, which violated the previous court's written final judgment. In addition, the Mother stated that the Father had permitted the five year-old child to board a flight with an ear infection.

Custody and visitation cases may naturally bitter and sometimes even result to non-appearance of either of the parties during trial or appeals, according to a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer. In this case, during the time of trial, the Father was a resident of New York City and the Mother was residing in Tampa, Florida and a final judgment was given by a previous court to settle the ex-couples arguments over previous visitation exchanges. These are the things stated on the amended supplemental final judgment: (1.) that all visitation exchanges will transpire Pinellas County Visitation Exchange, (2.) that in case the visitation facility is not open, the ex-couples would each notify the other and the exchange of guardianship will then be held in the airport's police station, and (3.) that the Court expects that the child will be able to fly all by herself when she becomes 8 years old.

Because of the third stipulated judgment, the Mother filed a motion for contempt against the Father for not accompanying their child and allowing her to fly on an airline with an ear infection, which she claims both breached the settled upon agreement in the final judgment. Because of this, the Father, appealed to a higher court to change the decision that he was acting on contempt. According to our New York Family Lawyer, the motion for contempt filed by the Mother was reversed because of several reasons. The Father claimed that before the exchange happened, he was in Pinellas County and that his current wife was taking care of the child back in New York.

Prior to the agreed date of exchange, the current wife took the child to the airport, where the Father hired an escort service to watch over and accompany the child through the plane ride to Florida. Then the Father and the child met at the airport and later on, took her to Tampa to see her Mother. During that time that they met from the airport, the Father claimed that he did not notice that the child was suffering from an ear infection or did not look to have suffered an ear infection because of the plane ride. These claims as to how the child was escorted and met by the Father at the airport were not contradicted by the Mother. However, she insisted that she had to take the child to the doctor and that the child was diagnosed to have an ear infection. She did not give evidence that proved the ear infection started during the plane ride.

Moreover, each of them were asked to interpret the third stipulation in the final judgment and the Father understood it that the child will not go unaccompanied and that the airline won't allow it if she did because it was the policy. The mother claimed that she understood the sentence and meant that either the Father or she must accompany the daughter in plane rides going to New York or Tampa until the child reaches eight. The present judge then contacted the "previous" judge who issued the amended final judgment. The previous judge who handled the case agreed with the mother and the current judge that the child must not have flown all by herself until she was eight. Because of this, the Father was indeed found in willful contempt of the final judgment.

According to a Brooklyn Order of Protection Lawyer, the Father, as previously mentioned, appealed to have the decision reversed because according to him, he interpreted the final provisions literally and that his daughter did not technically fly alone but was escorted during the entire plane ride. Moreover, the provision was stated and was made into a written order as "neither of them shall let the child fly alone..." It did not say that either parent must accompany her when flying until she reaches eight. The amended judgment did not really demand that parents must accompany her all the time and that the Father had proof to back his claim that he really hired an escort service. Therefore, it was found out that he did not violate the provision and that he was not acting in contempt.

The case was then compared to a similar one wherein the mother was held in contempt for being unable to fulfill the visitation exchange because she refused to give the child to the husband's present wife. The court reversed and held that the mother was not in contempt because it was expressly written on the agreement that only she and her ex-partner are allowed to fulfill the transfer of custody and this was why she refused to give her child to the ex-partner's wife. In this similar case, the mother read the law literally, which was how it should be and that law must be written this way so that the parties will truly be able to fulfill the demands of the provisions.

So although the prior judge to the main case really meant that the child be accompanied by either parent when traveling via airplane, he did not expressly put this provision into writing. To hold the Father in contempt, this provision must have been plainly and expressly written as an order in the final judgment. Therefore, the motion of contempt against the Father for allowing the child to fly with an escort was reversed. In addition, the Mother was unable to provide evidence that supported her claim that the child developed an ear infection from the plane ride. To make matters worse, she intentionally did not allow the child to go back to the Father because she claimed that the child was sick. However, although this was truly the case, it was not indicated on the provisions that a child's sickness can postpone the transfer of custody. Therefore, the order of contempt against the father for letting the child fly with an ear infection was also reversed and that the Mother instead was found in willful contempt for not allowing the daughter to see the Father only because she was too sick to fly. The orders were also found to have violated the Father's right for due process because these were made when he wasn't present at court.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Terms of Final Divorce Judgment" »

Sometimes, people have the knowledge and means to make law work in their favor. Take for example a case that was reviewed by a New York Family Lawyer about how two parents argue about visitation rights to their minor child. Primarily, the mother is seeking review to quash overthrow the "Shelter Hearing Order" made against her which forbids all forms of communication between her and their 11-year-old daughter. This decision was given by the juvenile court, which is the special body for trial and passing of judgment to minors who are involved in crimes and other issues involving children and adolescents.

This started out when the father who was a lawyer applied to permanently make himself the custodial parent of the daughter in 2000. Then the following year, the mother and the father agreed that they would share parental responsibility for their child and no one was to be designated a primary custodial parent among them. A Guardian Ad Litem, or an advocate who is appointed by the court on behalf of the child, along with the psychologist, and the trial judge all agreed upon and adopted the settlement agreement of the parties regarding visitation rights with their minor child several weeks after the main parties agreed upon a settlement. According to a Brooklyn Visitation Lawyer, about two months later, the father started a new lawsuit to temporarily suspend the mother's rights to visit their child on the grounds that she made up stories and reports that he was abusing their child. He filed a report based on this and had the mother arrested.

She was arrested the day before she was to spend a long summer vacation with her daughter, which was what they have previously agreed upon. As a result, the mother's visitation rights were reduced to supervised therapeutic visits and she sought to appeal this decision. A Bronx Custody Lawyer reports that the family court granted the father's move and ordered the visitation rights to be modified. Then, he requested the DCF to file for a petition for dependency without the presence of the Mother and where the Department of Children and Families' lawyer confessed that the claims contained in the Father's petition were insufficient to take it into the DCF system. The after a few days, the DCF attorney dismissed the dependency case.

Immediately after, the father filed another dependency petition wherein he also used the same claims and accusations from the petition that was already previously sacked by the DCF. Based on the prior decision of the family court, the present judge said that it would not be right to create an order that is not the same as the one made by the family court judge. Having said this, the present judge still did not dismiss the petition but instead, set a hearing for the petition. The mother was not allowed to make any form of communication and the supervised visitation rights were fixed. After several hearings were conducted, the mother appealed to have the fixed supervised visitation rights reversed and the father afterwards terminated his dependency application in the juvenile court.

Then the mother's appeal was granted and that the modification was found to violate the use of discretion because the evidence presented by the father were already found to have no bearing by the DCF in a prior petition that the parties already made a previous agreement as to visitation rights, and that no evidence or change was found to be potentially harmful or disadvantageous to the child to warrant a change in the visitation agreement. Therefore, the visitation was then further modified in favor of the mother and to make up for lost visits from the time that she was arrested up to the time that she endured the supervised visitations. The new agreement for make up visitation shall include the daughter spending the entire summer with her mother and that the father will be able to visit every Wednesday and alternate weekends.

According to our Bronx Order of Protection Lawyer, a week before the daughter was supposed to spend summer in her mother's home, the DCF filed another affidavit and a petition to place the child in shelter for old allegations and a new one which involved the mother pulling her daughter's hair and pushing her to bed, and making a motion to hit the girl and calling her names. The trial court granted immediate shelter hearing without the mother present. Among those who were there were the DCF, the Father and the Guardian Ad Litem. They stated that they notified the Mother through a phone call but she simply did not oblige. The hearing went on without the Mother being able to defend herself. Thereafter, it was concluded that although the girl reported possible child abuse practices, there were no evidences to support the claim and those alone do not constitute child abuse.

Moreover, the court rejected the DCF's petition for shelter because the evidence that was used were already rejected before. What was found out, however, was that the child was truly a dependent. Whether her allegations against her mother were true or not, it must be tried on a different time, complete with evidences submitted to the DCF supporting the claims. If this was found out to be true, then the petition of the DCF for shelter must be upheld. Also if the DCF won't do its job on behalf of the child's welfare, the other parent must step in for her defense. The claims made by the DCF did not reveal that the child was truly in potential danger and that the Mother was seriously hurting her daughter when she goes for a visit in her house. What the courts were more worried about is the cleverness of the father to use all means and influence to get the DCF and the dependency court to permit him to break a visitation agreement with the mother, even if he presented evidence which were already found insufficient.

Because of this, the visitation rights of the mother were retained and that the shelter order made for the girl against the mother was disregarded. However, if the girl and the father or even the DCF were able to provide concrete evidence that the child was truly suffering from child abuse then it will be another legal battle, will truly strip the mother off her visitation rights and she will definitely be put to jail. It may or may not have been just coincidence that every time the girl would meet with her mother, the father stirs something up to prevent it. The court finds this alarming considering the DCF, the dependency court, and even the daughter were unwittingly being manipulated.

Continue reading "Court Examines Visitation in Light of Alleged Abuse Allegations" »

Alabama legislators are considering a bill that would almost completely change the way that Alabama’s judges are able to order divorcing parents with children to divide their time with their children. If the bill in its current form passes, it would stipulate that provided both parents are fit parents, they would share equal custody and responsibility in raising their children after the parents’ divorce.

Sponsors of the bill informed a New York Family Lawyer that this seeks to address a long standing issue of one of the parents’ relegated to only a few hours of visitation with their children each month. It is in their opinion that by having both parents included in their children’s lives that the children will no longer feel like they are being pulled in two separate directions. They further add that as a part of the divorce the parents would be required to submit a parenting plan to the court that would stipulate what parts of their children’s lives they would be responsible. In case the parents would disagree, the parents would alternate years of certain responsibilities.

However, opponents contend that a “blanket fix” will not necessarily work, and that judges need the flexibility to decide what is in the child’s best interest. These opponents went on to add that the alternate year proposal could be detrimental to the children in that they may be permitted to do one thing the year when one parent makes the decision, and not be allowed to do the same thing when the other parent decides the following year. This is not the type of consistency and stability that children need.

At least one of the major concerns to this bill still needs to be addressed. For instance, the need to determine the suitability of each of the parents will need to be determined before the parenting plan could be implemented. At least one of the arguments is that if either of the parents has a criminal history. In many instances, a parent who has a history of drugs or violence may be deemed as unsuitable to participate in this type of parental agreement.

Although the bill is presently before the Alabama senate, there continue to be many questions that require answers before this bill should become law.

Whether you are in the process of a divorce, need to file a paternity suit, or require an order for protection, it is important to obtain skilled legal advice. Whatever your family law problem, our team can ensure that your case is handled professionally and with the utmost care.

Continue reading "Alabama Legislators Promoting Equal Parent Time" »

New York Divorce Lawyer Reports: Woman Runs over Husband’s Ex-Wife.

At a local ball park in Alabama, a woman subjected at least seventy witnesses, many of whom were young children, to the horrific scene of her running over her husband’s ex-wife and daughter – not once, but three times.

Police say the 43-year-old woman is charged with two counts of attempted murder and one count of reckless endangerment. She was released on bond. It is possible that the woman will have additional charges brought against her.

Apparently, the scene started after a little league game when two women got into an argument. The root of the problem was a custody issue involving the victim’s children. As the situation escalated, one woman became violent and used the biggest weapon she could find – her car.

Authorities responded to an emergency call, and when the chief arrived at the city park, he saw a sizeable crowd had formed around a car. Supposing that the crowd was at the crime scene, he approached and after getting eye-witness reports, the chief ascertained that the accused woman did indeed use her vehicle as a weapon. She first ran over the daughter, pinning her against the car. She then backed up and ran over the mother. She backed up again and ran over her again. The woman attacked multiple times when after the first one, the victim was in no shape to retaliate.

According to reports from victims’ family, the mother had to go through surgery for a broken leg, broken back, and a broken pelvis the next morning. Her recovery will be a long process.

Thankfully, the child suffered minor injuries to her leg but is otherwise physically fine.
Any psychological or mental trauma apparent in the child hit and the child witnesses is unknown at this time. Speculation will reveal that some children are probably in need of psychological help.

There has also been no word on the victim’s ex-husband. His location at the time of the incident has not yet been provided.

If you are filing for divorce, or need assistance with child visitation issues, or perhaps need an order for protection, it is important to speak with quality legal counsel right away.

Continue reading "Woman Runs over Husband’s Ex-Wife" »

Media were thrown out of the courtroom at a recent custody hearing involving actor Charlie Sheen and his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller. The judge cited “questions of abuse.” A New York Family Lawyer reveals that it is usual practice for a judge to close the courtroom when there are abuse allegations to hear. The origin and nature of the sensitive questions were not explained before the media was exiled.

The recent life of actor Charlie Sheen has been riddled with a mess of struggles. The latest rebuff came when his petition to take custody of his 2-year-old twin sons from his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller, was shot down in court. Each parent is seeking sole custody of the boys. The court ruled that custody is to remain as an earlier custody agreement outlines.

Sheen and Mueller, who have both struggled with sobriety, were seen in attendance at the hearing. Mueller recently returned to rehab.

After the hearing, Sheen left the courthouse surrounded by security; he then immediately flew to Washington D.C. to perform in his stage show. When Mueller left the courthouse she smilingly hugged her attorney, but declined to comment.

A month earlier, Mueller filed for a restraining order against Sheen referencing a threat Sheen made on a recent trip to the Bahamas. She alleges that he threatened to behead her. The earlier custody agreement was supposed to have overcome any differences the two were still having about the custody and visitation arrangement of their boys, and many think Mueller would have revoked or amended her restraining order. With this newest filing, however, it is yet to be seen how the order and the agreement will play out. There is much speculation about just what the home life of the twins would be like in the custody of either parent.

The custody disagreements are supposed to now be settled, but the public expects more courtroom time for the former “Two and a Half Men” star and his estranged wife.

Whether you require assistance with a divorce, an order for protection or paternity issue, it is important to your case to speak with a skilled lawyer as soon as possible to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Questions of Abuse Close Courtroom During Sheen-Mueller Custody Hearing " »

Curtis Jackson also known as 50 Cent has come to terms with his ex-girlfriend regarding his 11 year old son’s visitation said a New York Family Lawyer. He will be able to spend 1 weekend per month, as well as one month in the summer and half of both his winter and spring breaks. Both parents seems to be satisfied with the decision made in Suffolk County Family Court in Central Islip, New York. 50 Cent’s son Marquise is a resident of Dix Hills, Long Island.

Child Visitation in The Bronx and Westchester County is when a non-custodial parents wishes to visit with the child. Child Visitation is closley related to Child Custody when the main priority is whats in the best interest of the child.

Continue reading "50 Cent deals with son’s visitation issue in Central Islip Family Court reports a New York Family Lawyer" »

Stephanie Madoff had no idea of the events that were about to unfold on the morning of December 11, 2010. The Disney World trip she was enjoying with her 4-year old daughter and her own mother was the getaway both she and her daughter needed in order to create new and better memories for the two, a New York Family Attorney heard. What lay before her as the morning progressed would change both her and her daughter’s lives yet again.
At some point after 6 a.m. the 35-year old Stephanie would check her phone for any messages. While the first message that she received from her husband, Mark Madoff, was bothersome, it was the second message that sent her into a state of panic. The second message simply said, “I love you,” in the subject line, and contained an empty message body. She immediately contacted her stepfather to the couple’s New York apartment to investigate, and what he discovered would shake the woman to her core.
What Stephanie Madoff’s stepfather discovered in their apartment, was Mark Madoff hanging from a ceiling beam with a black dog leash wrapped around his neck. He was 46-years of age at the time of his death. A NY City Family Lawyer was also told that he did not leave a suicide note behind, and the last two messages that Stephanie received were all she had left.
By the time that Stephanie, her daughter, and her mother, arrived at her New York apartment, the usual media frenzy was in full swing, which sources have told authorities, that angered her, yet she maintained her composure. Suffice it to say, that heartache overcame her anger as the rest of the day drew on. Custody is not an issue as the family lives is Manhattan, New York City where the mother will be deemed to be the custodian.
Stephanie Madoff is likely Bernie Madoff’s ultimate victim, as her only crime was to be in love with the son of the man who was convicted of bilking millions of dollars from his many victims. As it would be discovered, his two sons, Mark and Andrew, are the two that turned their father into the authorities once they learned of their father’s crimes. They were the elder Madoff’s victims also, it would seem. Each of them went onto to deal with it in different ways.
Bernie Madoff is currently serving a 150-year prison sentence for his crimes.

Continue reading "Madoff’s Daughter-in-Law’s Uncertain Future " »

A distressed mother of an alleged 14-year-old alleged murderer has just been charged with entering the United States illegally, according to New York Family Lawyers and is facing deportation.

The 43-year-old suspect was arrested with her husband and taken from their apartment, where they lived for nearly eight years to be federally charged with illegal re-entry after previous deportation according to local police reports.

In 1997, the mother was originally deported for possession of rock cocaine according to police reports. No records indicated that she applied to be reinstated to the United States. Her husband was originally deported back in May of 2002.

It is unknown what prompted the arrest, but authorities said the couple was arrested and taken away in front of their other elementary school-aged children. The children were also taken from the couple at the scene. Custody is always an issue in counties like Nassau and Suffolk.

The 14-year old alleged murderer, who admitted to participating in at four beheadings, is currently in a protected location while Mexican Authorities search for evidence of citizenship and other details about the boy who was supposedly born in San Diego.

Authorities continue to investigate whether or not the two older sisters had ties to organized crime. They are currently being held in a Mexico City detention facility.

In a similar story, three men were arrested this week for possibly working for the same drug group located in Cuernavaca. Arresting army troops were led to an area where these men allegedly buried at least two of their homicide victims.

Continue reading "Family charged for Illegal Entry to the US" »

According to a prominent New York Family Lawyer there is a new bill proposed which could revamp the child custody laws? This will force judges to offer equal parenting time to parents unless one is said to be unfit for parenting.
The state is trying to make child custody laws much fairer. If both parents are loving and fit then they should both be involved. Two parents are needed to raise well rounded children.
There are a large number of supporters of this bill. It says that it would prevent many fathers from being nothing more than visitors to their child’s lives. Instead they will be able to be part of their life. This will also make the child’s life much more stable.
If this bill was passed then any parents divorcing would need to create a parenting plan. This would then say which parent the child would be with on different days on the week. If the parents are unable to reach a decision then the judge would order joint custody.
A New York Family Lawyer questions the ability of the bill to stabilize the life for the child. It is thought that this could mean that children will have to sacrifice.
Supporters say that they just want both parties to have fair representation under the law. They argue that at the moment they are not treated fairly.
The NY Family Lawyer points out that life has changed a lot over the years. In the 50’s it might have made sense for the mother to retain custody of the children. However, now with both parents working almost all the time, this will not always be the case.
Other supporters of the bill said that it was a good idea. However, they said that the definition of an unfit parent would need to be extended. This will make sure that any criminals or violent people are not able to get equal custody of their children. Bills like this are studied in New York City and Long Island to find out the significance for their venues.
In the bill, an unfit parent is described as someone who fails to offer the proper level of care to their child or to harm the child in any way.

Continue reading "Bill Attempting to Reform Child Custody Laws" »

A man who is accused of killing his wife and her boyfriend was attending his child’s custody hearing on Tuesday. The child is now 13 years old and the court case will decide where she should live explains a New York Family Lawyer. This is a very unusual case as most custody cases occur due to divorce.

The father is said to of killed his wife and her boyfriend. It is said that the man broke down in court when he was questioned. In Manhattan and Queens, lawyers deal with these cases many times.

The court looked at some of the information surrounding the murder investigation when making the decision of custody. The court was told that the young girl was in the shower when she heard gun shots. The 13 year old girl was at the hearing but she did not enter the court room. Perhaps this was because it was too upsetting for her to see her father, and murderer of her mother.

It has been decided by the court that the 13 year old girl will continue living with her sister, according to NY Family Lawyer. In most conventional custody hearings the court will ask both parents. In this case, the state and the father were asked. Neither of the lawyers on either side had any objections when asked for their opinion.

It was decided that the sisters home was a stable environment and suitable for raising a child in. The court witnessed the man break down when he was questioned. The judge needed to stop the hearing once because he started to cry so loudly. It is thought that the man does show remorse for his actions.

The girl seems emotionally balanced and enjoying living in a comfortable environment. She apparently wants to be a police officer when she grows up. Hopefully this girl will be able to turn her life around and study to become a Police Officer in the future.

A Judge ordered the father to stay in jail and away from his daughter. He said that he would not be awarded a bond and that he had destroyed his child’s life forever.

Continue reading "Man Accused of Killing Wife Over Custody" »

A man carrying an axe outside an in-home childcare facility in the community of Glenn Dale, in the District of Columbia area, was shot and killed by three police officers, authorities said.
The incident happened just before 3 p.m., a Prince George’s County Police spokesman told a NY Family Lawyer. According to the spokesman, officers were sent there to look into reports of an armed man around the daycare.
The suspect was part of a child custody dispute and wanted to take his children from the daycare. The daycare provider called the children’s mother, the police spokesman said, and the mother told the provider not to release the children to their father.
After that, the police spokesman revealed, the provider called police.
When the officers arrived, the police spokesman said, the man had already left the premises. Officers remained on the scene, and eventually the man returned, while at least one officer was still there.
Details of the shooting are still being investigated. According to him, the suspect emerged from his vehicle with an axe in hand and approached three officers.
“The officers felt threatened and they discharged their firearms,” he said.
The man was shot a number of times and pronounced dead on the scene, the police spokesman said. There were no other people injured.
Family is very important to just about everyone and people will go to great lengths to protect them, quite understandably. There are, of course, right ways to protect the family and wrong ways. NY Family Lawyers have the knowledge anyone needs when there are family matters to take care of in an effective and legal manner.
Divorce and child custody issues can be very painful for both sides, making it difficult to come to a compromise, which is why not only an advocate, but a good advocate, is important. There are many nuances to family law that most people just aren’t aware of. This is true in Queens and Staten Island.

Continue reading "Axe-Wielding Man Shot Outside Daycare" »

Actor Charlie Sheen has stumbled into a mess of recent struggles. The latest rebuff came when his petition to take custody of his twin sons from his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller, was shot down in court. The custody is to remain as an earlier custody agreement outlines. According to a New York City Family Attorney, those records have so far been kept confidential.
Both Sheen and Mueller were at the hearing. It is public knowledge that both have been struggling with sobriety for quite a while. In fact, Mueller just recently returned to rehab.
After the hearing, Sheen left the courthouse surrounded by his security detail and flew straight out to Washington D.C. to perform his stage show. When Mueller left the courthouse she was smiling and even hugged her attorney. She declined to comment, however.
A month earlier, Mueller had imposed a restraining order against Sheen; she referenced a threat Sheen made to her on a recent trip to the Bahamas to behead her. The earlier custody agreement was supposed to have overcome any differences the two were still having about the custody of their children, and many think it would have led Mueller to revoke or amend her restraining order. With this newest filing, it has yet to be seen what the order and the agreement will look like in application. Custody battles in Brooklyn and The Bronx should be handled by local lawyers who are familiar with the laws in those places.
There is much speculation about just what the home life of the twins would be like in the custody of either parent. While it is not the job of the public to ascertain where the toddlers will be best off at, it is the indescribably hard job of lawyers, judges, and the parents themselves, to attain the best environment and support structure for dependents. As New York Family Law Offices know, it is imperative to find the right legal aid for you and your situation. Children, ultimately, depend on the decision you make on who your legal representation will be.
While the custody agreements are supposed to now be settled, the public is expecting to hear of more courtroom time for the former “Two and a Half Men” star and his estranged wife, Brooke Mueller.

Continue reading "Charlie Sheen’s Twins not in His Custody " »

The data is in for the 2008 year regarding abortions, said a New York Family Lawyer. If you are a pro-life believer, the news is good for you. If you are pro-choice, you might wonder if the data is good news or bad, since it could mean two different things. But no matter which way the data is interpreted, there was not a significant increase in the amount of abortions performed in the US from 2005 – 2008.

There were 1.21 million abortions in the year 2008. That averaged out to 19.6 per 1,000 women. During the year 2005, the other year when data was gathered, the rate was 19.4. Those numbers are down significantly from the peak in the year 1981 when the average was 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women. However, those numbers were surgical abortions. Nowadays, there are also medical abortions available by drugs that induce it.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that pro-choice people are saying the numbers are good in the fact that there are less teen pregnancies where women are faced with the abortion choice. Pro-life people claim that more people are choosing life, whether they go with adoption after the birth or keep the baby, alleges a New York Family Lawyer. Both groups say that women are being educated more and studying their options before they make any type of choice regarding an abortion. Neither side really claims a victory in the number, nor do they claim a loss.

Consult an attorney if you have a family matter that needs court attention. Stephen Bilkis and Associates can represent you and the interests of you or a loved one in court. Come into any of our conveniently located offices for a free consultation.

According to a New York Custody Lawyer, Pamela Anderson thought she had a struck a real deal in Las Vegas in 2006 when she promised to promote her then boyfriend Laurence Hallier’s luxurious tower resort.

Las Vegas Panorama Towers boasts luxurious condos with spectacular views of the Las Vegas strip expanding from 700 square feet to nearly 2,000 square feet. Anderson claims to have participated in multiple promotional activities for advertising and promoting the newer venture back in 2006.

According to New York City Family Lawyers, Anderson was promised either a unit in the third of three towers to be built or $1 million in exchange for her promotional assistance.

The first of three towers, which opened in 2006 sold out in six months; the second, which opened in 2007, sold out in 12 weeks; and the third tower, which was set to be done in 2009, had sold 92 percent of its units when the recession hit. As a result, only half the units in the third tower ended up closing.

Hallier explained at that time it would take nearly a decade to break even on his investments because many of those units in the third tower entered foreclosure.

According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, Las Vegas-based Klai Juba Architects was the designer of Panorama Towers and is known for creating the "holes" that reveals a gorgeous view through the first two towers.

"When we started developing Panorama Towers several years ago, there were really only a few high-rise projects here, and all but one of those projects were just being built” Hallier said.

"We decided that we wanted to make the building feng shui because about 20 percent of our sales are to Asian-Americans. We worked with our architect, Klai Juba, to incorporate all of our consultants' suggestions," Hallier added.

Even after all of the excitement and planning, Hallier said he couldn’t have predicted what the recession would do. “I simply didn’t have the money or the units to give,” he told reporters.

Anderson had served as hostess to several parties for Hallier and had counted on owning one of the units after her work was done. Hallier recently began re-launching his third unit under a new name with new sponsors. Anderson and Hallier ended their relationship reportedly last year.

Being involved in a lawsuit with a former loved one is difficult and often emotional. Stephen Bilkis and Associates will handle your case without emotion and will uncover the right facts.

Come in and see us in any of our conveniently located offices. In New York City, we have locations in Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County. We will provide you with a free consultation and ensure that your rights are protected throughout your legal proceedings.