New York Family Law Blog

A New York Family Lawyer said the appellant of the case is Harry Louis Eckel who is represented by Dennis A. Barbarisi, from Fort Walton Beach. The appellee of the case is Anita Karla Eckel who is represented by John P. Townsend of Chesser, Wingard, Barr & Townsend in Fort Walton Beach.

The Appeal

Harry Louis Eckel is seeking an appeal from an order made by the circuit court that dismisses his petition for dissolution of his marriage based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Case History

The appellant and the appellee were married in May of 1981 in the city of Queens, New York. The couple lived in West Germany until May of 1983 when the wife left Germany and moved to the city of Montgomery in Alabama. The appellant filed a dissolution of marriage petition in Okaloosa County, Florida stating he is currently residing there and has lived in the county for at least half a year prior to the petition being filed.

The wife motions to dismiss the petition as she states the court lacks jurisdiction over the case because her husband had not been a resident physically in the state of Florida for at least half a year before he filed the petition for the dissolution of the marriage.

A court hearing was held for the motion to dismiss and the wife appeared at the hearing. A New York Criminal Lawyer said she contested the jurisdiction of the court stating that she had never lived in Florida. However, the husband had lived in Florida when he was a member of the Air Force from 1964 to 1971. He bought a home in Okaloosa County in the year 1970 and has maintained ownership of the home over the years. He left Florida in 1971 as he was stationed in West Germany from 1971 through 1975. In 1975, he retired from the military and then lived in Florida for a time period of six months. He was then hired by the United States Department of Defense as a civilian employee and relocated to West Germany. He has lived in West Germany until the petition was filed. Despite not physically living in Florida for a number of years, the husband has maintained a bank account with Eglin Federal Credit Union and has a driver’s license from the state, which is current, and has voted in Florida since the year 1968.

Court Discussion and Verdict of Appeal

When in the military a state of residence is where the individual resided prior to being deployed somewhere else. A Brooklyn Family Lawyer said that in this particular case there is no evidence to show that the husband has had a legal residence located in any other state other than Florida. There is also no evidence to show that the husband has had any inclination, since 1970 when he was a member of the military or working as a civilian for the military, to make any other state besides Florida his home.

For these reasons, we do not find any support either in facts provided by the case or in the law that are sufficient for holding the original verdict of the court for dismissal of the petition. We are reversing the order of the previous court and grant the appeal to the husband.

Have you found yourself in legal trouble? If you are involved in a divorce proceeding, or have a child custody issue, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. They have offices located throughout the city of New York and can help you determine what steps you should take in order to solve your legal dilemma. You may call the office to set up a free consultation at any time.

In this case, Matthew G. Czajak is the petitioner and Donna A. Vavonese is the respondent.

The Background

The Family Court Act provides jurisdiction over paternity to Family Court only when determining issues of support. The Family Court does not have the authority to ascertain status except when involved in adoption proceedings. A New York Custody Lawyer said that a father looking to establish paternity when the child is being supported by the mother's ex-husband cannot be determined here due to the court's lack of jurisdiction.

This type of case is commonly called a “reverse paternity proceeding”. Basically, although the ex-husband is listed on the birth certificate of the child and is now paying child support to the mother, the plaintiff is seeking to request a determination of paternity.

Both parties recollect differently the events leading up to the child's birth. The petitioner's mother and wife back up his version of events, while the respondent's mother and ex-husband support her account of the chronology. The petitioner claims that their sexual relationship began in September of 1974, while the respondent claims that it did not begin until after the child was born.

According to the respondent, she only had a sexual relationship with her then-husband during 1974. The ex-husband agrees that they were engaged in a relationship of this nature during the window where conception must have occurred, and that no birth-control method was employed by them during this time. Events that follow the birth of the child complicate this otherwise seemingly simple matter.

Because of the marital problems she had with her husband, the respondent began a campaign to aid herself in obtaining a divorce. She began to send cards to the petitioner that were signed care of the child and sent to “Daddy”. He saved those cards and submitted them as evidence in the case.

In the initial divorce case, the former husband testified that the respondent told him that he was not the child's father. The divorce was awarded, and the husband was ordered to pay $350 per month in child support to the respondent who had custody of the two children. He has since testified that the child is his. He often visits with the child as well.

Legal Issues

A Queens Family Lawyer said paternity law evolved to help provide the means of supporting children without exclusively relying on the assistance of the state. Family Court was granted jurisdiction over paternity issues as of 1962. Article 5 of the Family Court's legislative history shows that establishing support for the child is the main reason that paternity cases are pursued. The financial welfare of the child is the primary concern in such cases. It is important to note that the husband of the mother in a paternity case is not a necessary party to a paternity legal matter.

Filiation and legitimacy is not the same thing. In New York, a child may become legitimate through adoption or the marriage of its parents, or by a judgment issued by the court. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said a legitimated child gets full legal status, but filiation does not provide this. Filiation entitles a child to make a claim against a parent’s estate however, whereas a legitimate child has no claim against an estate that does not specify them as a beneficiary in a will.

Because paternity suits are aimed primarily at establishing support for the child, a case must be made that a child is not being properly supported in order for a paternity case to be valid. Essentially, the laws are in place in a situation such as this to ensure that if the husband of the mother of the child was not providing properly for the child that she could seek judgment against the “father” of the child in order to obtain support for it.

Ruling

Because the child was supported properly, the court decided it did not need to assess the evidence in question to determine paternity, and the petition was dismissed.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help when you find yourself in a legal situation. Our team of lawyers will help you choose the right type of legal action in your circumstances. To find out how we can help you, contact one of our metropolitan NY offices. We will be happy to provide you with a free telephone consultation.

In this case, the petitioner is Petra A. Mac Fadden, and the respondent is Peter R. Martini.

Case Details

The petitioner would like a modification to an original divorce judgment. The original judgment required that $100 in child support was paid every month by the respondent to support the couple's daughter up until her eighteenth birthday.

One option for the petitioner was to have the court modify the original judgment because the circumstances in place at the time of the initial ruling had changed. Instead, a foreign child-support order was filed under the terms of Domestic Relations Law.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the petitioner can request that the respondent be subjected to New York Law in so far as that may require modification to the ruling made in Colorado. The respondent lives in California and acknowledges that he is the father of the child in question; however, he did attempt to defend himself against the petitioner’s request that his child support payments be increased to $300 each month, and the requirements that the payments last until the child turns 21 instead of 18.

Currently, the Colorado court has issued a statement requiring that $3500 in back-owed child support be paid to the petitioner.

The petitioner then requested that the payments continue from the 18th until the 21st birthday of the couple's daughter. She also requests that the respondent be required to pay select medical bills and the counsel fees brought up by the case.

Examination and Rulings

Under New York Law, the petitioner is correct in assuming that the respondent is responsible for child support payments until their daughter becomes 21. The fact that they are divorced does not limit his financial responsibility under this law. However, the issue is whether or not the New York Law applies in the event that the terms of child support were already set in a Colorado court.

Jurisdiction over the respondent must be established before proceedings can conclude. A Queens Family Lawyer said the petitioner claims that simply by filing his response with the court that the respondent has placed himself under the jurisdiction of the New York Court, and that any finding would be enforceable in California where he resides. The court however, feels that this response alone is not enough to grant jurisdiction.

The court does have the authority to enforce an existing order laid down by another court. However, modification of that order based upon New York Law does not seem to be provided for in the law. A basic law principle states that information which is excluded from a law is done so intentionally. Therefore, it must be concluded that the exclusion of language which would enable such a modification was done so intentionally and must be respected. Without a change of the circumstances of the case, trying to change the order based solely on the laws of another state would actually be a constitutional violation.

It is also important to note that any change to the amount of child support required would not only require an assessment of the father's financial circumstances, but also of the other mothers. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the Equitable Distribution Law requires that the financial situation of both parents be considered when determining financial responsibility for the various expenses related to the raising of children.

The motion for increased child support was denied.

The petitioner also moved to collect counsel fees from the respondent. Two problems exist with this request. First, there was no affidavit submitted which detailed the expenses incurred to her. This makes it impossible to accurately assess her costs. Because the petitioner also did not submit adequate information detailing her own financial situation, it is impossible also to determine her financial need which could affect whether or not the respondent is required to pay for her counsel.

Based on this lack of information, the second motion is also denied.

When a legal matter arises, Stephen Bilkis & Associates are there to help you evaluate your legal options. Our lawyers understand any circumstance that you might find yourself in, and will strive to obtain a favorable outcome for you. Free consultations are available at our offices found throughout metropolitan New York.

In this case, Patricia Bryant is the respondent-appellant and James Bryant is the appellant respondent.

History

Mr. and Mrs. Bryant were originally married in 1976. Their two children were born 1981 and 1983. The initial separation between the couple took place in 1994, with an understanding between the two of them that Mrs. Bryant would have physical custody of the children, although they would share custody. The following year, Mr. Bryant was ordered to pay $116 each week in child support.

A later hearing examined the financial parties of both parties. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that James Bryant had received a sizable inheritance from his father. Over the course of the hearing, he was ordered to pay out the counsel fees of $4000, a weekly child support payment of $115, a lump sum of $100000 in two payments and to maintain health and dental insurance for each child. The insurance was to be his responsibility until a divorce was finalized.

Mr. Bryant attempted to argue that the inheritance should not be included in the assessment of child support. He argued that the lump sum payment should not be required and that a portion of the Family Court Act was unconstitutional, but none of these arguments were upheld.

Family Court Act

Section 413(1)(e) of the Family Court Act essentially states that when a parent receives money from sources outside of his or her regular income, the court can determine how that money needs to be paid in child support. A New York Family Lawyer said the impact such a payment might have upon the parent who has to make it should be considered, but it is not against any regulation for the court to rule that a lump sum payment be made. The statute also clearly sets this type of money outside of other money that is classified as income.

Section 1(c) clearly shows that inheritances should not be included when assessing the income of a parent. The fees that he was required to pay are also allowable because section 1(f) makes it clear that the court has the ability to require additional payments if it deems that in a given situation the current amount of child support being paid is unjust.

The initial assessment based on the inheritance did have some flaws, however. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that the lump sum assessed would require liquidation of assets that could prove difficult for the respondent. Complicating the issue further is the fact that the son of the couple was living with the respondent at the time. Awards of this type are to ensure that the child enjoys a certain standard of living; however, that child was already enjoying any increased standard of living afforded by the inheritance as a result of living with his father already.

It also appeared that the initial ruling may have made a mistake when assessing how much child support needed to be paid because the amount paid for medical insurance may not have been considered when looking at the total expenses that the respondent faces for supporting the children. A Queens Family Lawyer said that another mistake was made when the respondent was ordered to also maintain insurance for the petitioner herself in addition to their children.

As a result, a new hearing was scheduled for determining child support. When ruling on the matter, Family Court was reminded to keep in mind that the income of both parents and the potential financial impact on the respondent of child support payments need to be considered when determining how much child support needs to be paid. If a lump sum based on the inheritance is still required, then Family Court should consider if there are ways it could be paid that would not affect the principal assets of the respondent in such a way that may damage his own standard of living or ability to support himself.

Results

The initial ruling was reversed, and the Family Court of Schenectady County was required to proceed in redetermining child support requirements.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates specialize in helping clients in legal situations determine what types of legal action options they have available to them. Free telephone consultations are available to help lay out these options for you. Your specific circumstances are understood by our team of highly trained lawyers. They will work with you to ensure that the outcome you end up with is the best possible one. You can find our offices throughout greater metropolitan New York.

It's been reported that Chris Kattan of SNL is separating from his wife, Sunshine Tutt who is model.

The couple were only married for six months. They met a couple of years ago at a party and dated after that.

The moment you decide to file for separation on the road to a divorce, it is essential to have a New York Family Lawyer to represent you. Custody and visitation issues could become involved. A qualified lawyer will fight on your behalf to reach an understanding which will be palatable for you in a tough time. it is not important to worry about a protection order If child abuse and neglect are not issues.

Almost immediately after saying that there were no plans for a divorce, the two filed official papers in L.A. Superior Court. The couple said there were the ever present irreconcilable differences." Kattan and Tutt have a "prenup" according to the papers filed with the court.

Another Hollywood love story bites the dust.

Continue reading "Chris Kattan Files for Separation from Wife" »

The parties were married on 1992 and on 2005, the Mother filed for divorce. The couple resolved the issues arising from their marriage and agreed to joint custody of the two subject children, a daughter age 12 and a son age 14. The children would have visitation with each parent pursuant to the detailed schedule set forth and as mutually agreed to by and between the parties. Since then, the children have been spending Mon-Tues with Father, Wed-Thurs with Mother and alternating weekends with each parent. With the exception of Thanksgiving, all holidays are shared equally. The parties agreed that they would alternate Thanksgiving as follows: two years to Mother and one year to Father. Both children excel academically. Neither child is alleged to have special needs.

Petitioner Father is 43 years old. He lives alone with two dogs. He has been engaged since February 2006 to his girlfriend who he intends to marry when the case is over. After his marriage, the Father told his ex-wife he intends to relocate where his fiancé lives and works. As of the time of his trial testimony, the children had met the Father's fiance approximately six times.

The Father is self employed as a real estate agent and an insurance salesman. He was employed as a Vice President at a division of a Bank, for about eighteen months, but is no longer employed there. A New York Family Lawyer said that no evidence was introduced as to the Father's current income. The Mother said that she believed her ex-husband may be supporting himself by selling marijuana and using equity from the home. The Mother alleges that their daughter five bags of illegal drugs in his Father's cellar. The Father admitted that he was arrested for marijuana possession when he was 32 years old.

The Mother is 42 years old and works out of the home as an insurance agent for her father's insurance company. She lives with her husband and her parents in her parent's home. Prior to her remarriage, she always provided health insurance coverage for the children. Pursuant to the Judgment, Father is required to contribute 50% toward any unreimbursed medical and/or dental expenses. According to Mother, Father contributes to dental expenses from time to time.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that the Mother remarried to a man who has a severely autistic and mentally retarded teenage son who spends significant time with Respondent Mother and the children at their Mother's home.

The current husband works full time as a school bus driver for special education children. Like Mother, he also has medical insurance and other benefits as part of his employment. The Stepfather is currently providing the subject children with medical and dental coverage. Mother claims to have a massive support system of friends and family.

The relationship between the Mother and her daughter has been strained since the she remarried. The daughter has had incidents with Mother and her maternal grandmother where she is alleged to have spoken disrespectfully to them or otherwise not followed the rules of the home.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that the record revealed that in June 2007, Family Court entered an Order against Father for child support arrears. Mother filed an enforcement petition against Father for nonpayment of that Order. Father paid the arrears during the course of the trial. Father admits that he is required to maintain a life insurance policy for the benefit of his children. Father further admits that he allowed his life insurance policy to lapse several years ago. Father is further required to contribute to a College plan per year, per child. Father admits he has not contributed to the plan for several years. Father admits he decided to put the money he is required to save for college tuition into real estate and his home. Father admits he owns several vehicles and pays insure these vehicles. On the subject of why the parties divorced, the Father said that during the marriage Mother withdrew from him which resulted in his having affairs.

On January 6, 2005, while the divorce proceeding was pending, Mother filed a Family Offense Petition against the Father. A temporary order of protection was issued against Father in which Father was ordered to stay away from Mother except for court ordered visitation contact. That same day Father filed a Family Offense Petition against Mother. No Temporary Order was issued on that Petition. Days later, the Father filed a Supplemental Family Offense Petition against Mother on behalf of himself and the children. No Temporary Protection Order was issued on that Petition.

On March 21, 2005, after a contested trial where both parties were represented by counsel, a finding of Aggravated Harassment was made against Father and a five year Final Protection Order was issued in favor of the Mother against Father. Based on the Court's finding, Father was ordered to attend anger management as a condition of the Final Protection Order. A finding of Harassment was entered against Mother. A one year limited Final Protection Order was issued against Mother on behalf of Father. A three year limited Final Protection Order was issued against Mother on behalf of the subject children with the added conditions that Mother not use corporal punishment on the children and that she attends anger management. No evidence was submitted at this custody trial as to whether either parent ever complied with Family Court's Order that they each attend anger management.

According to a Queens Family Lawyer, on 2005, an appeal was filed which was dismissed. On, the Father filed a Violation Petition against Mother. That same year, Father filed another Violation Petition against Mother which was dismissed for failure to appear for trial. Father filed another Violation Petition against Mother on 2007. This Petition was joined for trial with Father's 2006 Violation Petition. After trial on 2007, all petitions brought by Father against Mother were dismissed and Father was enjoined by Family Court from filing any further petitions against Mother.

The Father admits that, in December 2006, Mother invited him to her house to discuss their daughter’s behavior. At that time Mother told Father their daughter’s behavior was out of control. While Father claims he could not now recall the details of that meeting, Mother credibly testified that Father instructed their daughter at that time to obey Mother and the rules in her home. Father claims that Mother admitted to him that she smacked their daughter in the face. Notwithstanding the Mother's alleged admission in that regard, the Father left their daughter in the Mother's care that same evening.

Approximately a week later, Father brought her daughter to a local police precinct to report an incident of domestic violence by Mother. The Father could not recall the details of this particular report made against Mother and no further evidence was elicited on this subject at trial. Father did acknowledge that he has called the police a number of times on Mother and has filed several incident reports against her. On at least one occasion, he brought the children to the police precinct with him. Some of these reports had to do with missed visits.

In total, since 2004, Father filed nineteen petitions against Mother in Family Court, including five petitions to modify child support. Mother has filed twelve petitions against Father in Family Court including several for enforcement of child support. The constant litigation between the parents has resulted in multiple trials in multiple courts, multiple investigations by the Administration for Children's Services (ACS), multiple lawyers, and multiple forensic evaluations, all of which have caused the subject children to be interviewed on a myriad of occasions by a number of professionals.

Over years of bitter litigation and days of trial, each party has recounted to this Court a litany of incidences that have occurred between them. Some of these instances may be best described as petty with each parent bearing a share of the responsibility such as Father putting his daughter on a motorcycle after he found out she rode a quad with Stepfather, Mother changing her daughter’s dental appointment to occur on a day Father had visitation and Father switching it back to a day Mother could take her. Rather than dignify these incidences, the Court discusses in this opinion only those significant events which weighed most heavily in this Court's decision to grant sole child custody to Mother.

In this case, both parties agree that the current joint custody arrangement set forth in the Judgment is not working given the deteriorating relationship between them. After considering the evidence in this case including the in camera examinations, and for the detailed reasons set forth below, this Court finds that, while Mother has clearly made her own errors in parenting, on balance, she is more fit than Father to serve as the sole legal custodian of the subject children.

During his lengthy testimony before this Court, Father was not credible on all of the events critical to this Court's decision. For example, his explanation as to how marijuana wound up in his daughter’s lunch box when he was undeniably the sole guardian of that young child at that time was particularly preposterous. He has reported Mother to ACS approximately nine times which, among other consequences, subjected the children to numerous interviews. On one occasion, Father alleged Mother gave their son a dangerous instrument which, in fact, was a wooden souvenir knife from Mother's honeymoon vacation. The fact that Father called ACS on Mother without seeing the knife, or asking Mother about it, suggests that he has little appreciation of the adverse effects these investigations have on the subject children and their relationship with Mother.

Father's interference in the children's relationship with Stepfather, which ranges from punishing their son for time spent with Stepfather to rewarding the children for clandestinely reporting negative incidences that occur in Mother's home, is another major area of concern to this Court. He has encouraged his daughter to document in books incidences involving Mother and Stepfather which he incredibly claims was to further her therapy. Rather than helping the children develop strategies to deal with their mother's remarriage, Father presents as ready to capitalize on any mistake or misstep by Mother in her parenting of the children. This is particularly destructive to their daughter whose behavior suggests that she is still struggling with the effects of this divorce and the remarriage of her mother.

Indeed, after many days of trial testimony, this Court has serious concerns about Father's parenting and his ability to place the children's interests before his own needs. His decision making with respect to the securing of mental health treatment for the children is extremely troubling. Father fired two of the children's therapists, and forbid the doctor from working with the children. Although afforded ample opportunity to do so, Father was unable to explain to this Court why he would deprive the children of mental health services given that many of the children's emotional issues stem from the toxic relationship between him and their mother.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine what legal actions to pursue. The team recognizes the circumstances you are in and will work hard to patch things for you. Call for a free consultation and speak with a lawyer from our office.

In November 1998, a review of the documents of the Dominican proceedings confirms that the mother and father separated. At that time, the father consented to the terms of an order of protection, agreeing to refrain from assaulting the mother verbally or physically, and to vacate the family home until the mother was able to find other housing. He agreed to pay child support, and was given regular visitations as long as he behaves appropriately.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother left the Dominican Republic in December 1999, leaving the children with her mother, and remarried in June 2000. Five weeks later, while the mother was still in the United States, the father filed a claim for child custody. The maternal grandmother, who had physical custody of the children at the time, was named as defendant in the matter.

The subject children are the couple’s twin sons, born in 1997 in the Dominican Republic. It is undisputed that the father obtained a default order of custody there, an order appealed by the mother and affirmed by the Dominican court, a month after she had brought the boys to the United States. In quick succession, the IDV Court—which has jurisdiction over both criminal and family law matters—received a criminal prosecution against the father based on his alleged 2002 threats to kill the mother; a writ of habeas corpus filed by the father seeking enforcement of the Dominican custody order; a petition for custody of the two boys filed by the mother on 2002 and a family offense petition filed the same day by the mother alleging additional acts of violence.

A law guardian assigned on November 2002 to represent the children reported an extensive history of violence at home. Based upon this information, a New York Custody Lawyer said the court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction and directed the Administration for Children's Services to interview both parents and the children.

In a forensic report submitted to the Dominican District Court, the evaluator—who had interviewed only the father, as the mother was not in the country—concluded that he should have custody as the mother is both physically and emotionally absent, and that the other family ties, according to the father, are not the most adequate for the children's emotional or intellectual development. In this case, the father figure would be of vital importance and suggest beginning individual and family therapy to address some of the previously reported issues.
In the midst of the Dominican judicial proceeding, the mother temporarily ceded custody of their sons to the father, in a document known as a friendly agreement, signed before the law guardian. The custody dispute thus came to a halt.

In 2002, the father reactivated the Dominican custody proceeding. In his request for a hearing he alleged that the amicable agreement between the parties is not being adhered to. The nature of the violation that prompted the father's action was not specified. By that time, however, the mother apparently lived in the United States and had regular, though intermittent, contact with the boys.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the proof of service by mail to an address not specified in the part of the Dominican court record was submitted to the Dominican court. The mother did not appear for the custody proceeding. In a decision the District Court found respondent in default for nonappearance and awarded full custody to the petitioner. Noting that the children had now been with their father for over a year, the court declined to move them again, citing the need for stability and security in the future. The law guardian in the proceeding took the position that custody should be awarded to the father, noting that the mother ceded custody of said children by means of an amicable agreement and urged adherence to that agreement.

The mother, who asserts that she learned of the renewed custody proceeding only when she appeared in the Dominican Republic for a visit with the children, filed an appeal and inquiry was held in that court. In a decision, the Appellate Court affirmed the grant of custody to the father.
Two weeks after the Dominican appellate decision, the father was arrested for threatening to kill the mother. He asserted to the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), which interviews criminal defendants prior to arraignment for the purpose of advising the court on bail, that he had been self-employed full time as an entrepreneur in the Bronx for the past two years. He gave his address in New York. He represented that he had lived alone at that address during the prior year. He gave a different New York address to the arresting officer. At the arraignment, a full protection order was issued in favor of the mother. Based in part on the father's representations of community ties, he was released on his own recognizance and remains at liberty.

Almost immediately upon release, the father brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Bronx County Family Court alleging that the mother removed the children from the Dominican Republic in contravention of the final order of custody issued by the Family Court and affirmed on appeal. A law guardian was assigned to represent the children, and the matter was made returnable for the following day, in the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court, where the criminal matter was also now pending.

In response to the writ of habeas corpus, a Queens Family Lawyer said the mother appeared in the IDV Court with the children. Given the allegations of violence at home and the lack of official, translated court documents from the Dominican proceeding, the children were allowed to remain with their mother pending further inquiry.
The mother filed a petition for custody with Bronx County Family Court. In that petition she alleged that, after she fled without the children to the United States to escape violence at home, the petitioner took their children from her mother's home without her permission and obtained a default order of custody from a court in the Dominican Republic. She also filed a family offense petition alleging again that the father had threatened her life the day after he filed the writ of habeas corpus and that he had displayed a gun, threatening to shoot her and the children.
The parties again appeared in Court and the law guardian had now interviewed the children, and reported an extensive history of violence in the family. The court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction of the proceedings and stayed enforcement of the Dominican custody decree. The children were again allowed to remain with the mother.

In a report to the court, a child protective services worker recounted a history of severe violence during the parties' marriage in the Dominican Republic. The mother had medical records corroborating her claim of injuries at the hands of the father, and stated that the Dominican court had issued a protection order in her favor.

The Dominican court placed no weight on the violence in the family, awarding full custody to the father despite the existence of protection order. Moreover, this court now has pending before it a domestic violence criminal matter in which the father twice allegedly threatened to kill the mother, and a family offense petition in which the mother alleges additional death threats against her and the children—in violation of the court's criminal court protection order—as well as menacing with a gun. Certainly enough information has been presented to the court to warrant consideration of the exemption.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine what legal actions to pursue. The team recognizes the circumstances you are in and will work hard to patch things for you. Call for a free consultation and speak with a member of our legal team today.

Reality television stars Jon and Kate Gosselin have been going through a very public divorce on TLC’s hit how “Jon and Kate plus 8." While the divorce has not been finalized yet, a temporary custody order has been issued by a family court judge. It has been agreed by both parties, and their Custody Lawyers, the parents will take turns having the children for an entire week straight. During that time, the non-custodial parent will leave the home and have no contact with the children or the home.

According to a New York Custody Lawyer, recently, during one of Jon’s weeks with the children, Kate violated the custody agreement by showing up at the home and demanding to be let in. Her reasoning was that she did not approve of the sitter Jon was using for the children. It was not in the Gosselin’s custody agreement that the custodial parent had to have their babysitters approved by the non custodial parent. When Jon refused to let her into the home, she called the police. The police arrived and told them this is something that will have to be dealt with in a Family Court.

If you are in New York and are having problems arranging a custody agreement, or if one of the parties in your agreement is having a hard time sticking to their schedule, you will need a New York Family Lawyer. The legal team at Stephen Bilkis & Associates has been helping families come to a custody and visitation arrangements for more than a decade. We have offices located in Nassau and Suffolk County, as well as in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens. We offer a free consultation at 1-800-NYNY-LAW (1-800-696-9529). Call us today to take advantage of this free opportunity and speak to a lawyer about your situation.

The health and welfare of their five children are the main concerns for Nicole and Eddie Murphy who are splitting up and headed for a divorce.

Eddie has had some strange encounters which made headlines and have caused problems in the marriage. Nicole will be seeking custody of the children and financial aid in the complaint filed by her attorney.

The comedian was halted by police with a hooker in the car but Eddie claimed that he was just giving the passenger a ride and no charges were made.

It is of the utmost importance to have New York Family Lawyer representing you if you are in the middle of a family dispute which causes separation on the way to divorce. Many of your rights e.g., visitation, joint custody and full custody are bound to be a factor. You will end up in a far better place if you hire a proficient attorney act on your behalf. If no child abuse and neglect are involved, an order of protection does is not necessary.

The 15 year marriage will come to an end as Murphy continues to appear in films such as 'Shrek 3', in which he is the voice of Donkey.

Continue reading "Eddie Murphy's wife filed for Divorce" »

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.

No one can deny the extreme love that people have for their pets. Companion animals, be they furry, feathered, scaled or finned, bring out the best in the owners who love care for them. Pets bring love, warmth and devotion into our lives,and caring for them is a responsibility that most pet owners are happy to assume, according to a New York Family Lawyer. 



Planning for the care of our pets after we are gone is necessary. Rather than being seen as mere assets that need a place to be stored, a growing trend in estate planning seems to taking place as more pet owners are leaving trust funds to the animals themselves. 

These trusts are legally binding, and provide calm reassurance to pet owners that once they are no longer capable of caring for their beloved friend, the animals needs will still be maintained and their lives will still be filled with love and affection. Pet owners can name guardians for their animals in the event of the owners death as well as set aside money that is only to be used in the care and feeding of the animals. 



Reports suggest that these trust funds are not just for the rich and famous. It does not cost a million dollars to keep a dog happy. And while high profile cases, such as Leona Helmsly leaving a veritable fortune to her dog, seem to be more excessively amusing than anything else, real people who love their animals are taking steps every day to make certain that their animals will remain comfortable no matter what befalls their owners. 

If you have questions or concerns regarding issues of custody, marriage, divorce or family planning, contact a Stephen Bilkis and Associates today for answers. Not only wwill skilled legal counsel be there for answers and guidance in your time of need, but they will represent your case with responsibility and respect.

A New York Family Lawyer knows that when losing a loved one, the pain is tremendous. And, finding out that your family is in financial ruin is even more difficult. That is of course, if your family is actually suffering from poverty after the loss. One family parted ways as the widow and the son of the deceased tricked the two girls in the family into believing that their father was deeply in debt when he died.

The man’s widow was to receive one-third of the man’s estate and the rest was to be split equally between his son and two daughters. The son and the widow hid the fact that there was a will and insisted that the property the man owned would need to be sold. The young man finished law school but never joined the bar and basically built up a real estate business for himself.

The girls who found the will in a Bronx courthouse, promptly drove to their brothers home in Long Island. The sisters confronted their brother who eventually called the police to escort the sisters out. The case has remained in a Family Court since that time. Seven years later, a judge in a Bronx court ruled that the statue of limitations had expired. After an appeal, the decisions was reversed setting the stage for a second trial.

During the time of waiting, one of the sisters borrowed against her teacher’s pension and the other was on food stamps and was threatened with foreclosure. The sisters were helped by lawyers willing to work on the case pro se because neither of the ladies could afford a lawyer. The sisters eventually received the rights to various properties but were still upset because they felt like their father had wanted them to enjoy his estate while they were young.

Although this case will probably loom even longer, as the brother is disputing the price of one of the properties that the sisters acquired, this is definitely a learning curve for others. And, because of that, this could very well be one of the longest of its kind. A New York Custody Lawyer commented that family Court is normally where cases like this occur but with the time invested in this one case, this case definitely seems unique.

A New York Family Lawyer reported last week that Chris Brown’s court order to stay away from ex-girlfriend Rihanna has been lifted.

Chris Brown still reportedly is prohibited from harassing Rihanna after being sentenced to five years of community service and probation. The R & B star was also sentenced to complete twelve months of domestic violence courses after he plead guilty to violently attacking and assaulting Rihanna.

Rihanna and Chris Brown were in a serious relationship when Chris Brown became abusive with Rihanna. Brown reportedly physically and mentally abused her several times before the singer pressed charges against him. Rihanna’s attorney was ok with the downgrade to the protection order.

Brown is not new to anger and violence troubles. He has been in trouble for angry outbursts more than once these past few years. Brown publicly spoke out on twitter with hate words. His response to these charges: “In an unfortunate lack in judgment sparked by public Twitter attacks from an attention seeking Raz-B,” Brown says in a statement provided by his publicist. “Words cannot begin to express how sorry and frustrated I am over what transpired publicly on Twitter.”

Brown apparently had been fired up by a tweet talking about his brutal assault on his ex-girlfriend. His response on twitter was “over the edge,” according to some, and proves he continues to struggle with anger problems.

Brown also said, “I have learned over the past few years to not condone or represent acts of violence against anyone. Molestation and victims of such acts are not to be taken lightly; and for my comments I apologize — from the bottom of my heart. I love all of my fans, gay and straight. I have friends from all walks of life and I am committed, with God’s help, to continue becoming a better person.”

Brown finished the course on domestic violence and proudly tweeted “I’m done with class i have enough self-respect and decency to be proud of accomplishing this DV class. Boyz run from their mistakes. Men learn from them!!!thx”

Since Brown’s arrest and the class completion, Rhianna could not be reached for comment. The star reportedly continues to undergo counseling according to a Queens Family Lawyer . She continuously says she hopes that her pressing charges against Chris Brown will help other abused women find the courage to come forward and get themselves out of bad situations.

Brown’s attorneys could not be reached for comment regarding the twitter comments and his road to recovery.

Domestic violence is serious and can destroy your life and self esteem. Whether you need assistance with a divorce, an order for protection, or spousal support, contact a New York Custody Lawyer from our office for assistance.

One little girl, doodling on her desk as many children are, found herself in a heap of trouble. She was a good student, rarely absent and was merely leaving her mark with an erasable marker on her desk. Apparently she was waiting on the teacher to hand out an assignment and boredom led her to leave a message on her desk. She figured she would be forced to clean up the marking on her desk but never dreamed she was going to find herself in jail for such a minor offense.

Arresting youngsters for minor infractions seems to be the norm in Queens as another 13-year-old was arrested for writing "Okay” on her desk. And, a 5-year-old was sent to a psych ward after throwing a temper tantrum, as five-year-olds seem to do on occasion. And now the various schools will answer to a court. The girl doodling while waiting on an assignment has been throwing up and is obviously distressed by the situation. She is still suspended from school and was given eight hours of community service, a book report and an essay on what she learned from the experience, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

This is one situation in a series of small infractions where children are being forced into realization in what seems like a bit of over-kill. And, her family will most likely seek counsel from a family lawyer or one specializing in cases where someone has suffered from what is seemingly an extremely minor and senseless use of the legal system.

Continue reading "Doodling On Your Desk Calls for Legal Intervention" »

A man who was wrongly accused of rape in 2008 is finally seeing justice being served. The initial case said the man raped his autistic daughter, who also happens to be mute and low-functioning, and the mother did nothing. The case was brought out when a teacher aide helped the girl type, even though she cannot speak or function above a two-year old level, said a New York Family Lawyer.

There was a physical examination, which showed there was no evidence of abuse. However, the man sat in jail for 80 days and his wife, the mother of the child, was also facing charges of abuse from the statement the teacher aide typed, according to a New York Custody Lawyer. The teacher aide has not faced any charges and was not named in the lawsuit against the township that handled the arrest. More lawsuits may be pending in the civil courts.

The case was dropped in March of 2008 because there was a lack of any evidence to prosecute the father or the mother involved. They had to go through a process and have their children removed from Foster Care. They also had lawyer expenses and court costs to cover. The $1.8 million dollar settlement will cover some of those expenses. Even though the family won the case, the township police department where they live maintains they did nothing wrong. They were simply following procedure from the report of an abused child.

Stephen Bilkis and Associates can assist you and your family members with any type of family matter going to court. Consult with our office before you report to court unrepresented. We will provide you with sound legal guidance and a free consultation with your first visit.

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.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a man, his wife, and their daughter, under suspicion of visa fraud, sources have confirmed to a New York Family Lawyer.

ICE officials suspect the Yorba Linda, CA, family of arranging fraudulent marriages, filing fraudulent marriage petitions, and filing fraudulent work visa petitions.

The investigation that began in 2009 as a result of officers of the Fraud Detection and National Security Division of USCIS began noticing similarities between more than 20 visa petitions they traced back to the company the family ran. Many of the documents that were used contained the same marriage and divorce certificates, witnesses, and even the same spouses.

The family business reportedly catered to Indian nationals who would be billed for fees of $15,000 and up to $60,000. The fee was based on the type of visa they wanted. The highest fee was charged for a marriage visa. Marriages were allegedly arranged by the family business to unemployed or low-income U.S. citizens who would be paid up to $2,000 for their efforts in the scam. The couples would then have their pictures taken together, open joint bank accounts, and do whatever else was required so as to make the fraudulent marriages appear real. After a time, the couples would divorce and some of the U.S. citizens would repeat the process with another foreigner.

A spokesman for ICE told a New York Custody Lawyer that those who think they can use the U.S. immigration system for personal gain would learn that “there's a high price to pay.” He went on to add, “Visa fraud is a serious crime. Not only does it undermine the integrity of our legal immigration process and penalize those who abide by the law, it also poses a significant [sic] security vulnerability.”

It is unknown at this time whether this is the family’s first run-in with the law, or if they have a history of criminal activity. If convicted on each of the charges, each of the family members faces up to five years in a federal prison.

Continue reading "ICE Arrests Family for Providing Fake Marriages for Visas" »

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.

Parents who separate must continue financially supporting their children even after their marriages have already been dissolved. However, according to our New York Family Lawyer, it is natural for parties under cases like these to be full of bitterness and resentment directed towards each of the parties. Usually, a custodial parent is appointed to determine the children's residence as well as for tax purposes. Some custodial parents refuse visitation rights from non-custodial parents, who in turn, refuse to pay for child support. When this happens, the children's welfare is put on the back seat. This is one of the drawbacks of separation. In this case that we will talk about, the Mother was awarded custodial rights and was receiving benefits from public assistance. Naturally, the Department of HRS will seek he father for child support who was allegedly in arrears for more than $980. Therefore, a motion was sought to hold the father in contempt for refusal to pay child support.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the HRS found out that the father was financially able to pay for the child support. During the time of the hearing, the Father defended himself by stating that the reason he did not pay for child support is because of the Mother's refusal to allow him to see his child. And because of that, the court rules on the Father's favor and concluded that the Father was not found to be acting in contempt and that he is not liable to pay for child support for an indefinite period. This made the HRS appeal the reversal of the trial court's decision. In addition to the Father's defense, the trial court also found out that neither and order of visitation nor was a request for one made by the Father. Our Nassau County Family Lawyer clarified that if the Father wanted to visit the children, all he had to do was ask the court to permit him to visit and if he was able to secure one, and the Mother refused the visit, the Mother will be held in contempt.

Since the Father did not do anything to appeal the court or have the Mother be held in contempt, he unknowingly waived his visitation rights. The trial court was not able to modify the child support terms because no proper proceedings were invoked to be able to settle the issue. To modify the child support, the parties could have agreed for new terms and the need for the modification must be thoroughly explained and justified. How the new terms will be able to support the child must also be discussed and conferred with by the parties. If and when they cannot reach for a settlement, then they may ask the Court to modify the child support terms. Again, the new terms must be justified and explained and that they must be granted on the basis of a change in one of the parent's circumstances such as loss of a job, disability, inability to pay, etc. However, in this case, none of these proceedings happened. Thus, the Father was found to be in contempt for refusing to pay for the child support and using the lack of visitation as a justification for doing so. The trial was then recommended to be remanded or sent back to a lower court for further trial and action. Moreover, it was suggested that the Father's duty to pay for child support must be enforced according to the law.

According to our Queens Family Lawyer, alimony or child support must not be dependent or must not rely upon whether the Father did not have visitation rights or was refused by the Mother during his visits. Unfortunately, many cases like this grant the waiver of child visitation and subsequently, the obligation to pay for child support. It must be known to all that if a parent fails to honor the visitation rights of a non-custodial parent, the child support must not be discontinued because of it. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act or URESA provides that the non-custodial parent must still pay alimony even if he was not permitted to visit by the custodial parent. On the other hand, if the non-custodial parent was unable to pay for child support because of extraordinary reasons, then the custodial parent must not refuse that parent's visitation rights.

If you think that your case is similar to this, don't hesitate to seek the help of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Protect your children from becoming entangled in angry and bitter disputes and let us assist you in this trying time. our office will help you overcome this difficult moment in your lives civilly, sensibly and most of all, for the benefit of your children. Call one of our offices now.

A student and her family got the best kind of present from the government recently, believes a New York Family Lawyer. The 18 year old in the family, who had applied to colleges and universities, was set to be deported back to their home country of Peru. However, immigration officials alerted the student that she and her family could remain in the US because she had been accepted in to UC Berkeley.

The family only found out about the reprieve days before it was scheduled to happen. The mother had already been arrested last year when it was found out that their visas were from 2001 and they had overstayed on them. Besides the mother and daughter, there is a 16 year old brother who also gets to remain in the country. They have until the summer of 2011 to work with a lawyer and get the case settled so they can have permanent legal status in the United States or work something else out.

The 18 year old had been accepted in to the UC Berkeley School in the fall semester, but since her mother had been arrested a few months before, she could not accept the admission She remained at home and attended a local community college in order to take care of her brother and save money for upcoming court expenses. The court expenses deal with her fight to stay in the states and that of her mother’s fight.

Speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates if you face a similar situation. Our skilled legal team can answer any question you have regarding a family matter or upcoming court case. Whether you are dealing with relocation, or a spousal support or visitation issue, we are here to help.

Continue reading "Student Gets Reprieve From Deportation" »

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.

Child visitation and child custody are cases that are very frequently occurring, especially in the states. The details of the case are not easy especially when the rights and the benefits of the children are the ones at stake. In this particular case, the grandparents are the ones who are involved in the case. This case involves the couple Diane and David Saul who are the maternal grandparents of the child who was born out of wedlock.

The said child was born around October of 1994 and lived with his mother and her parents. The father lived separately with his own parents since the couple was not married. When the child reached about 8 months old, the mother filed an action to demand child support for the child from the father. The father succumbed to this but the mother was killed in an accident when the child was two. This scenario led for the child to live with his father which started the issue between the parents of the mother and the father.

The grandparents are fighting for the right to visit since according to a New York Visitation Lawyer, this should be granted when one or both parents are already dead or if the child was born without his parents getting married. However, the conflict arises when the point of the father having the right to same privacy level is raised especially since the mother has already passed away. The points raised may be too hard to handle especially when all parties involved only have the interest to protect the child. The court is only after giving the rights to those who will not cause harm to the overall well being of the child.

The parents have all the right to their children until of course they grow up as adults and decide on their own. A New York Family Lawyer said that the grandparents relied heavy on a Spence case similar to this. But they forgot that with that case, the grandparents had previous case filed already against the father in the past and such intervened with the present case of the visitation rights. In this case of the Sauls, there may have been a paternity action filed by the deceased mother way back in 1995, but it is not pending. And the father has proven to have obeyed strictly to the rule of child support.

Hence, it became hard for the grandparents to demand for the rights to visit the child unless the father himself would finally open his doors for his child to see his own grandparents in the mother’s side. The decision for this case may have sounded very unfair and unjust but according to the laws, the fight could have been more solid if their daughter who is now deceased have been married to the father of their grandchild. The fact that he was conceived out of wedlock was the downfall of the entire case.

Do not let anything separate you from your child or let anything ruin your relationship with your family. It can be easy to understand the proceedings of such cases with the help skilled legal counsel. It does not always have to be that difficult to be able to spend time with your loved ones or even get to be with them for as long as you want.

Whether you need assistance with an order for protection, a paternity issue, or a grandparents rights case, contact our office for sound legal guidance and a free consultation today.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miss Mills is ending her two year relationship for financial reasons, or so it seems. The x-Beatle has been able to hold her off and avoid the long and winding road which will lead to a big pay day for Heather. Paul believes in yesterday. She is thought to have received only a relatively small interim payment. Child abuse and neglect are not at issue here so, no order of protection has been put into effect. Being her own council will enable Mills to question McCartney. This should be very interesting and throw off some high powered fire works.
New York City Family Lawyers as well as those in Manhattan handle these high profile divorces all the time. McCartney seems to be in this situation every few years. Fortunately for him the royalties keep coming in so he can afford the alimony and legal fees.

Continue reading "Paul McCartney's Wife Acting As Own Lawyer-Don't Imitate Her, Get A New York Divorce Lawyer" »

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" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New York Family Lawyer says a Gold Alert has been issued for a missing woman from Frankford. She had been missing from her home for a few days before her absence was reported say police. The woman is only 23 years old and was last seen in her home. She is still believed to be missing and in the area.

The Gold Alert is something new that is issued when an adult goes missing. The Gold Alert is similar to the process that is used when an Amber Alert goes out for a child. The only difference is in the name and what it refers to. The Gold Alerts are issued when the safety of the adult might be or is suspected to be in jeopardy. They do not usually issue a Gold Alert if a person has just left or went away on their own.

The family of the missing woman says they fear for her safety because of her mental status. The New York Criminal Lawyer reported that they have no evidence or any leads to where the woman may have gone or if she went with another person. All parties involved believe the woman left voluntarily, and there were no signs of a struggle or an intruder in the home before she left. There was no mention if any valuables or personal items were left behind. Police who think they might have seen the woman are encouraged to call the police with information.

Legal counsel can assist you in any matter that needs the court’s attention. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. We will ensure that your rights are protected at all stages of your legal proceedings. We have offices in New York City, Long Island and Westchester County.

The National Enquirer is being sued because it published stories about Ted Kennedy and a woman named Caroline Bilodeau-Allen which she claims are completely inaccurate and false. The stories report that Kennedy fathered a "love child" with Ms. Bilodeau-Allen.

The stories were published and alleged that Bilodeau became pregnant by the Senator while he was still married to his wife, Joan.

The moment one becomes embroiled in divorce proceeding, it is truly a must to have a New York Family Lawyer to rely on. Visitation rights and custody issues could be on the table if children are involved. An expert attorney who will advise you gives you a great opportunity of finding a fair minded solution to your marriage and family problems. Only complaints of child neglect or abuse will generate a protection order.

Caroline Bilodeau-Allen says in her suit that practically everything in the articles are completely untrue and bordering on slander. She does have a son named Christopher but denies that he is Ted's child. The stories also claim that she was offered money to keep quiet as well as other gifts such as cars and expensive animals. Bilodeau-Allen avers that all of these reports are untrue. A New York Family Lawyer can help in these situations.

Continue reading "Ted Kennedy "Love Child" before Divorce" »