New York Family Law Blog

In 2001 and Bronx County Criminal Court issued a three-year order of protection in favor of a woman and her child and against her ex-husband. In 2002, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a neglect proceeding against the ex-husband. ACS alleged that the ex-husband had not been supporting his child. During the pendency of these neglect proceedings the Bronx County Family Court issued a temporary order of protection, ordering the ex-husband not to have any contact whatsoever with his child or his estranged wife until the neglect proceedings are disposed of by the Family Court.

While the Family Court was hearing the neglect proceedings, ACS filed two petitions for contempt against the ex-husband for having violated the Family Court’s temporary order of protection on May 15, 2003 and November 7, 2003 when he called his child at the apartment of his ex-wife.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, on the scheduled date of hearing for the violation petition, the ex-wife failed to appear and so the Family Court found the ex-husband to have willfully violated the temporary order of protection. Later that day, the ex-husband came to court and the Family Court vacated its finding on the violation petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Estate Planning Issues " »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is important to note according to the that the child who is a minor was born right out of wedlock. If this is the case, there is a great chance that the child can be allowed to be visited too by the grandparents. But it is the right of any of the parents to not allow this especially when it comes to the aspect of familial privacy. This term about the rights of the parent to raise their kids without others interfering in the way. If there comes a time that they get into a disagreement, it should be taken to court and they will be the one to decide which would be best for the child.

Some researches done by a respected Nasau County Divorce Lawyer that there are cases visitation rights are given to parents only if it would be the best interest for the child involved. And it is very important to note that this scenario would only be allowed if the parents have both left their right for familial privacy by letting the court settle whatever disagreement they may have. But if it is the court’s decision to allow the grandparent to visit regularly, then this does not violate any of the parents’ privacy rights.

In the end with this case between Daphne Spence and Erica Stewart, the court allowed the grandparents visitation rights because the parents of the kids were not married. The court only looks after the best interest of the child that it would help the kid a lot to have additional support from a close relative. With the father being the parent on this case to appear more responsible than the mother, then the paternal grandparent of the kids has all the right to show concern too to their own grandchild.

Child visitation rights for grandparents can be truly complicated according to any New York Order for Protection Lawyer. It is very important that you do the right steps properly for if not, the consequences you would face can be overly devastating. You may end up not having any right to visit your grandkids which is very unfortunate. It helps a lot if you would do your own research first or seek the help of a credible law office like Stephen Bilkis & Associates. You can be sure to find an expert legal guidance to help you out understand more the details of your case. Whether you need assistance with a child support matter, a paternity suit, or a grandparent's rights case, we are here to provide legal guidance and a free consultation. We have office locations throughout the New York area, including locations in Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. We also have locations in Nassau County and Suffolk County on Long Island, and Westchester County.

It is not that easy to obtain your visitation rights especially if you are a grandparent but it can be much easier if you would try getting in touch with our office. Even when you fail the first time, you should never give up easily for this is what your lawyer would advise you to do as well. In every legal proceeding, a lot of courage is beneficial especially if it is your loved ones and your time with them is the thing that is at stake. Just make sure that you always keep the best interest of your grandchildren into consideration at all times.

Sandra Lynn Chavis filed a paternity suit five months after her child was born on October 6. The father named was Todd Adamson. She was claiming for paternity, child support, sharing in the medical expenses, shared parental responsibility and scheduling of visitation. A New York Family Lawyer said, in response, Mr. Adamson, who lives in a different State, asked for joint custody and visitation for him and the paternal grandparents living in Georgia. The father had admitted paternity already and had given financial support as well as paid part of the medical expenses of the child. They had their own proposed visitation schedules.

By September, six months after the filing, the court had finalized a decision. In terms of the visitation schedule, they had adopted the one proposed by the Ms. Chavis without any variation. This is even after they said that they will make a compromise schedule and not adopt just one. In the judgment, it said that there will be no overnight visitation for some time as an eleven month-old child has some emotional needs and physical limitations that make it inadvisable to do. According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the court sees the want of the father and the grandparents to form a bond with the child early on, but because they are far, it will be hard for an infant even a toddler.

The father, Mr. Adamson, in the lower court’s decision gets a few hours of visitation where Ms. Chavis lives. This is done on alternating weekends. Only by the age two does he get an overnight visit, which is only once every month. It is restricted further to Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon. By age three, he can already take the child for an overnight, not a weekend visit, outside the State. Extended visits are only to be done beginning the summer before the child enters first grade. There is also no provision for the visitation of the grandparents. Mr. Adamson appealed against this ruling.

The Court of Appeals found merit in Mr. Adamson’s claims regarding the visitation schedule. The lower court showed that it had applied the “tender years” doctrine, which was already abolished. This was the rule favoring the mother if the child is very young. They said that both parents have equal rights as to the deciding where their child lives and studies unless one is proven as incapable of taking care of the child. It has been proven that a father can take care of his infant child even without the mother. Having the father wait several years for longer visits deprives the father of having a meaningful relationship with his child. The reasoning that a child is too young to be apart from his mother is an error. The court reversed the decision.

Each parent has an equal right to the rearing of their child. This is only changed if one is proven to be unfit. Stephen Bilkis and Associates sees to it that you as a parent have your rights protected as well as the well-being of the child. The determination is now done with newer studies to decide what is best for a child.

Whether you need an order for protection, or have a paternity or visitation dispute, Stephen Bilkis and Associates have the experience that will provide you with options when you are in the middle of a visitation rights case. We have offices Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Manhattan in New York. We are in Suffolk County and Nassau County and in Westchester County in Long Island. We will provide you with legal assistance that makes sure your rights as a parent and your child’s welfare are protected. For a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

Authorities have told a New York Family Lawyer that a Bronx man allegedly injected his wife with poison before drinking it himself. Although reports are sketchy at this moment as to whether he stuck the needle into her buttocks or into her arm, the one report that is clear is that soon after the injection the 35-year old woman lapsed into a coma and died the next day.

The couple had only recently moved into the building due to a fire that had occurred at their former residence. The neighbors told a New York Family Attorney that since the couple had been unable to obtain a loan to assist them after the fire that the stress in their relationship became increasingly clear.

This stress continued to the point that police were dispatched to the couple’s residence on at least three occasions, with the latest being on Sunday, the day before this latest incident. The argument had reportedly been so bad, that the woman fled the couple’s apartment to go to her sister’s apartment that is in the same building. It was at this point that police were called to the scene, during which they filed a domestic violence report and then left, witnesses told a Nassau County Family Lawyer.

According to sources, the woman had returned the following day, Monday, in order to get some of her belongings. While her brother-in-law waited for her outside the man’s apartment, is when the woman’s husband reportedly injected her with the poison. After her 41-year old husband injected her with the poison, he is said to have drank an unspecified amount of the liquid himself. The woman immediately yelled from the window to her waiting brother-in-law for help before she is alleged to have fallen into a coma. She died the next day.

As part of the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) ongoing investigation, they are attempting to learn how the man was able to obtain the poison, which has been identified as cyanide. Cyanide is commonly has many legitimate uses including mining, industrial, jewelry making, during the final stages of making bronze sculptures, and many more. It is usually not readily available to the general public due to its toxicity.

Whatever your family issue, legal counsel can provide the support and help that you need. Whether you are going through a divorce, have a vistation dispute, or need an order for protection, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They are knowledgeable and skilled in cases involving child custody, paternity, prenuptial agreements, and so much more. Contact a us so you and your family will be better prepared for tomorrow.

Scheduled on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s late spring docket is a case that many believe could change the way that alimony is awarded in TN, a New York Family Lawyer read recently. The case that is receiving the focus is a divorce case that has been seen a divorced couple embattled in the courts since 2007.

At the time of the couple’s divorce, the appeals court ordered the man to pay $1,250 in alimony each month to his ex-wife of 21 years. At the time of their 2009 divorce, her salary was $72,000 and his was $137,000. Other sources have stated that the type of alimony that was awarded in this case is typically reserved for another situation that includes the woman having sacrificed her career for her family, is over the age of 50, and is unable to find a job that can pay her enough to maintain her current lifestyle.

While the opinions on whether a lifetime alimony award should remain in place varies, the underlying principle behind alimony is to ensure that the remaining family members do not have to needlessly suffer simply because one of the marital partners decides they no longer desire to continue in the relationship. There are also varying opinions as to if someone should be forced to pay alimony for the lifetime of the other partner, or until that person should decide to remarry. As a Nassau County Family Lawyer was also told, this is what the man who is party in the above-mentioned divorce is arguing. Part of his argument is that his ex-wife may never remarry simply because she would want the alimony payments to continue.

On the other side of the issue is the argument for these types of alimony to continue. The woman’s lawyer from the divorce case before the TN Supreme Court states that it was his infidelity that caused the marriage to break up and that she he should continue to pay for that.

The court is due to hear arguments from both side when they take up the case, and will likely consider the ex-wife’s need to continue her lifestyle that she had during the marriage, and the ex-husband’s ability to pay.

Has your spouse or partner betrayed you by being unfaithful? Stephen Bilkis and Associates can help to ease your suffering and get you back on the right track to happiness without the excess baggage of a cheating spouse.

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" »

“A state appeals court reinstated a woman’s lawsuit,” a New York Family Lawyer reports. The wrongful death suit was over a man she had considered to be her husband for four years, but who was not divorced from his previous wife before their wedding day.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals in ruled that someone who “believed in good faith” that he or she was legally married is, indeed, entitled to marital rights – including the right to sue in the case of wrongful death. This ruling goes against more than 20 years of opposing rulings in the cases of “putative spouses.”

A putative spouse is one who mistakenly believes they are married. California courts have recognized the rights of such spouses for a century or more. Legislation affirmed those same rights in 1969.

In 1988, however, a Los Angeles appellate decision began requiring that those who claimed putative rights had to show that their belief was not only sincere, but also “objectively reasonable.” This particular case in 1988 rejected a woman’s claim to alimony which was based on marrying a man in a private religious ceremony that did not comply with state law. Her purported husband, at the time of the marriage, assured her that is was valid, but his tune changed two years later when he decided to marry another woman. The court, in this case, ruled that the woman’s belief that she was legally married was unreasonable and thus, she was not entitled to the marital right of alimony.

In the recent case, the court ruled that the 1988 decision was a distortion on the law that was meant to protect those who were taken advantage of. The court sided with the wife of an ironworker that died in a workplace accident. She believed she had been married to him for four years before his tragic death. She did not know that during their wedding ceremony, her groom was still married to a previous wife. The divorce became final 3 months after the ceremony. The defendant claimed she had never read the divorce papers closely and thus never knew about the overlapping date.

When she tried to sue a contractor for negligence, a judge dismissed the suit, saying she wasn’t married and should have known it. The Appeals Court, however, unanimously ruled that she is entitled to a trial. The presiding judge wrote that the law asks whether someone “honestly and genuinely (believes) that the marriage is valid.”
The woman’s attorney called the ruling “good for the institution of marriage.”

Whether you are challenging visistation, are filing for divorce, or need an order for protection, it is important to see quality legal advice and guidance to ensure your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Woman’s Wrongful Death Suit Reinstated by Appeals Court" »

A lady hired marriage counseling services in 2009 and the bills mounted up to $10,476. The fees were high because she wanted a Pennsylvania based counselor to fly to Los Angles for the counseling. Then she failed to pay any of the fees, or travel expenses. The couple has since received their divorce noted a New York Family Lawyer.

The woman is currently being sued by Creative Energy Options because she did not agree to pay them the money that she owed. The marriage counseling services were provided in 2009, but she refuses to pay.

The divorce between the couple was finalized in December 2009. But earlier in the year she is said to of hired a Pennsylvania based marriage counseling firm. She asked them to fly all the way to Los Angeles to offer counseling services. The company explained that she was made fully aware of the costs, and the fact that she would have to pay for traveling expenses.
However, after the services were provided she was unwilling to pay her debts. She would not pay for travel or service fees which has left the company out of pocket.

The company mentions that they have tried to contact the woman eight times asking for payment. However, she has failed to make any payments as of yet. This has forced them to sue to try and recover some of the money that they lost.

It’s thought that the woman was bitter that the marriage counseling did not work out as the marriage still ended. However, she has made a commitment. She agreed to pay the travel and service fees and that is what she must pay.

The services have been provided, and the company deserves payment for their time and investment. The case is currently still ongoing, although it is clear that the company will not give up with their demands for payment.

Whether you are going through a divorce, or need an order for protection, or have a custody issue, it is important to seek quality legal counsel to ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "Marriage Counselor Owed $10,000" »

The Recession of 2007-2009 presented many people worldwide with problems that most had never seen before in their lifetimes. Although the global economy continues to struggle, most would agree that the recession is easing and many are beginning to put their lives back in order. A Brooklyn Divorce Lawyer has learned that although many couples are getting their finances back on track, there are others who have decided to call it quits as a couple.

Those who have studied certain points in history, such as the Great Depression, and various recessions and depressions that have occurred since, have indicated that most couples have a tendency to stick together during times of economic hardship. However, once better times begin to emerge, there is usually an increase in the number of divorces that are filed. While there is some discussion as to the exact cause for this, many do agree that when the prospects appear better to exit a bad marriage, that many people will take that path. This often occurs more whenever financial prospects appear better than when it does not.

While the economic recession may be concluding for many, there are perhaps just as many who continue to have financial difficulties. The number of personal bankruptcies being filed remain at similar levels, and that the financial stress continues to cause many couples to have problems. Financial stress is one of the biggest reasons that couples file for divorce. Many couples continue to struggle with mortgage payments that both parties submitted to without issues during better economic times, but when the economy soured so did their credit scores and bank accounts.Not to mentioin, if children are involved, the high legal costs asscoiated with a child custody battle, equitable distribution or child support payments.

Post-recession divorces affect everyone, including the affluent. There may be at least one big difference between divorces involving the affluent and divorces involving others. Most of the affluent couples who are seeking divorce are primarily concerned with their own financial portfolio than how the economy has affected it. In other words, they may be more inclined to divorce if their financial status will improve afterwards.

Regardless of what the reasons are that bring couples to a Brooklyn Divorce Lawyer, seeking financial help before it is too late is imperative to protect everyone concerned.

Continue reading "Divorce Numbers Rise as Economic Recession Passes " »

A New York Family Lawyer reports on a brutal attack that took place in judge’s chambers. An ex-Marine and his wife, also a former Marine, were meeting in judge’s chambers for their final divorce hearing when the husband viciously and ‘without provocation’ attacked his wife. The attack resulted in extensive facial and head trauma.
Authorities rushed the 23-year old woman to the hospital where she, bruised and swollen, was listed as ‘in stable condition,’ but because of the worry of a head injury, she had to be kept overnight in the intensive care unit for observation. She sustained a facial fracture, torn lip, and broken nose.
Her husband, the attacker, had to be subdued with a stun gun and is being held in the local jail on the charges of felony battery, domestic violence and resisting arrest without violence, according to police reports.
A New York Family Law Office pieced together what happened according to the eye witness accounts and police reports. The husband, who was without a lawyer, balked at having to pay child support, and he was incensed that a judge would tell him when he could and couldn’t visit his children. He was so flustered that he stormed out of the chamber. When he returned, he shouted something about refusing to comply with the orders and left again. The third time the man returned to the office, he raced directly toward his wife, grabbed her by the neck, and began beating her with closed fists on the side of her face. The first blow reportedly knocked her out.
As the woman’s attorney wrapped his arms around the crazed man until deputies arrived, the beaten woman collapsed in the courtroom clerk’s arms and a pool of her blood began forming near the judge’s chair. When deputies tried to arrest the man, he resisted until they eventually had to shock him twice with a stun gun to pin him to the judge’s conference table.
The woman’s attorney described the attack as “unexpected” and “surreal.” He goes on to report that “he was punching with a true vengeance.”
Another witness said, “I’m in shock and disbelief. I didn’t think anybody could take it to that extreme, much less in a judge’s chambers at that. Words, to be honest with you, could not describe what went on.”

Continue reading "Divorce Hearing in Judge’s Chambers Ends in Brutal Attack " »

Michele Elyzabeth claims that Heather Mills for whom she once worked is a liar and has misled her and everybody else on the planet as far as what kind of person Mills is. This comes a few weeks after Michele stopped doing publicity for the former wife of Beatle Paul McCartney.

Elyzabeth says that false stories about McCartney were leaked by Mills and that she even has Paul's phone bugged. She recorded conversations and played them for the then publicist. One of the recordings was between McCartney and his daughter. Mills wore gloves so that her finger prints would not show up.

In the tapped phone conversation with his daughter, Stella, Paul complains that Mills is driving him nuts with her craziness. Elyzabeth comes to the conclusion that Mills was in this for the money alone. The gold digger came out on top as she was given a 50 million dollar settlement back In March when the divorce was granted. NY Family Lawyers in Nassau and Suffolk Counties have taken note of this particular case and are aware of the outcome.

Continue reading "Mills a 'Gold Digger" »

There has been a lot of debate concerning this new law that would require couples to get professional counseling before being allowed a legal divorce. There would be a few exceptions to this new rule. Domestic abuse would be one of the exceptions, according to a New York Family Lawyer. People are upset and they don’t want the government to have the right to get that involved in their marriages.

About half of all marriages end in divorce and some law makers are doing their best to lower that number. Once divorced, if you remarry that percentage of divorce goes well over fifty percent.
Vince Lindgren stated, “Coming to a marriage counselor can give them some ideas about things that they haven't thought about that they can start thinking about breaking some patterns that might be destructive.”
But he even thinks this should be corrected another way.
Lindgren added, “If people are at the point where they are actually going to see a lawyer and actually filing papers, most of them are at the point where they've decided to move on and they would be just putting in the time.”
A lot of people are speaking up against this bill, according to a New York Family Lawyer. People all over the area have said this bill will step all over their rights.
“There might be kids involved and property, anything, there's just too many things involved. If someone found a new mate, what are you going to do? That is just called life,” explained John Brekke. John believes that it’s too complicated of an issue to just make ever go to counselor and try to work it out.
“It's an intrusion upon private rights. One should be able to make the decision themselves,” believes John Mahan. This man very clearly doesn’t want the government involved any more than absolutely necessary. Divorces in New York City and Nassau County should be handled by NY Lawyers.
Of course not everyone is against this new bill. Some believe that this could bring some much needed help in the lives of people who could work out their problems if they put in a little effort and this would greatly help benefit children that are involved.
Karen Vosburg concluded, “If people don't want to live together, maybe they shouldn't have to anyways, but I do think counseling helps.”

Continue reading "A new law would require counseling before be granted a divorce" »

Mel Gibson has a new movie coming out soon. The film is called The Beaver and will be in theaters on April 8 barring any further complications, according to a New York Family Lawyer that close to the scene. Gibson has been plagued by drama and heartbreak in his real life situation, fighting for custody of his baby Lucia and engrossed in an emotionally challenging legal debacle. These very public battles recently earned him a great deal of unwanted publicity as tapes of admitted physical abuse toward his then girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva began to surface. This drama has put the movie on hold on a number of occasions.

Tensions have risen between the estranged couple, sources revealed to the New York Family Lawyer. Neither one is talking to the other one and the process is admittedly a slow one. There is no doubt that the best interests of baby Lucia will be honored and that the situation will eventually be resolved, disappearing under the well worn rug of public spectacle and settling like dust into the memories of millions of fans who will no doubt be .

Ironically, the new movie mirrors some of the events that have given Gibson such grief recently, according to the New York Family Lawyer. Directed by Jodie Foster, The Beaver stars Gibson as a man with many issues and worries. His troubles are emotional, familial troubles that seem to become more controllable with the uneasy help of his very strange friend, a puppet that he wears on his hand. We haven't seen Gibson as a crazy man in a while, at least not in the movies. Perhaps this will be interesting.

Concerned about your legal rights or the welfare and justice of someone that you love? Afraid of custody battles and of adversity in a less than friendly situation? Call a reputable New York Family Attorney today and start the process of getting the outcome that you want. A New York Family Attorney can help.

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.

Former 'View' co-host Star Jones has an exit strategy from her three-and-a-half year marriage to Al Reynolds.

Jones stated on television that she was foolish to open her life up to the media and admitted that it was a bad call on her part. A month ago she filed for divorce and says that she will handle this episode in a different manner and try to learn from her past mistakes. She hopes to emerge from this experience as a stronger and much smarter person. When confronted with situations like this in Nassau County, it is best to call a New York Family Lawyer to come to your aid.

Divorces are difficult but is crucial that a person involved have a New York Family Lawyer speaking on your behalf. An expert New York Family Lawyer can aid you in finding a reasonable way out of the marriage difficulties you face.

The couple's wedding was highly publicized during Jones' time on 'The View,' where she took a lot of criticism for trying to get much of the ceremony and decorations for free with her celebrity status.

Continue reading "Jones Files for Divorce From Reynolds and hires a Nassau County Family Lawyer" »