New York Family Law Blog

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" »

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" »

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" »

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 " »