The Case

A New York Lawyer said that William Coday is in court today to appeal his conviction of first-degree murder and the sentence to death.

History of the Conviction

The original case is a murder case that went through a jury trial. The jury found William Cody guilty of first degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to death.

The murder victim of the case is Gloria Gomez, who Coday stated to have an on again, off again, relationship with. In June of 1997 he accused Gomez of having an affair and she moved out of his apartment and into an apartment with some friends. Coday proceeded to leave messages for Gomez and told her that he was dying of cancer. She told him that she would come and visit him on Friday July 11th in the morning, between 10 and 11. A New York Custody Lawyer said he did not arrive until nearly one p.m. and he was upset. The initial conversations were about his condition and then he told her that he wanted her back. When Gomez told him that she didn’t love him, he became enraged and punched her. He then struck her with a hammer and a struggle ensued. After knocking her to the ground he went into the kitchen and retrieved a knife and then started stabbing her. The cause of death was multiple blunt and sharp force traumas.

Case Sentencing

When the court sentenced Coday to the death penalty, there was great weight given to the nine to 3 death penalty recommendations from the jury. The court found that the murder was heinous, atrocious, and cruel, and was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Basis for Appeal

The appellant, Coday gives several reasons for the appeal of the judgment and the sentence. The first reason given is that the State did not prove that the murder was premeditated. He also argues that at the time of his arrest he was staying at the residence of his ex wife and because of this he had the right of privacy within that residence. A Nassau County Divorce Lawyer said he states his arrest was unlawful as the police entered the home and arrested him without a warrant, without his ex wife’s permission, and without exigent circumstances.

Discussion and Verdict for the Appeal

During the trial an “expert witness” gave testimony stating that Coday was unable to conform his conduct to act in the requirements of the law. However, these conclusions were based on various reports given about his particular memory of the murder and feelings of detachment at the time. These opinions lacked sufficient basis and cannot be used as evidence that over a period of 20 years he would not be able to conform his conduct to act within the requirements of the law. For this reason the testimony was rejected. This rejected testimony may have factored into the sentencing of the defendant, even though it was not deemed to be valid evidence.

A Queens Family Lawyer says the death sentence is only to be used in extreme circumstances and based on the evidence provided today, we agree with the guilty verdict of the trial court. However, we are sending the sentencing back to the trial court for review.

If you are in need of legal advice for any reason, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to set up a free consultation. The lawyers of the firm are willing to help you through any type of legal situation that you may find yourself in. There are offices located throughout the city of New York for your convenience and you may contact us at any time.

Appeal

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is appealing the grant of a summary judgment in a copy right infringement case that was made by the district court in favor of the defendants. The original ruling of the court rejected Alveda King Beal’s claim that stated “Coming to America,” a movie starring Eddie Murphy, was in violation of the copyright laws that protected her adventure novel titled “The Arab Heart.”

Review of Material

In this case of a copyright dispute, the court must fully compare both the works that are in question. This court has reviewed both the novel and the movie.

In the novel, The Arab Heart, the protagonist is a prince named Sharaf Ammar Hakim Riad. He is the sole heir to a sheikdom. In the beginning of the book the prince agrees to go to the United States for technical training for improvement of the oil fields of their country. The prince agrees to go to college at Georgia Tech as long as he is able to attend the school as a normal college student. The plaintiff contends that her story has two plot lines. The first is about the political unrest in the home country of the prince and the other is his adventures while in America. It is the second plot line that the plaintiff states has been infringed upon by the movie.

The movie, “Coming to America” was released by the defendant as a romantic comedy and starts out on the prince’s 21st birthday. There is little detail regarding the country that the prince is from. As is custom of the country a wife has been chosen for the prince. He discovers that she is totally complacent and decides that this is not what he wants from a wife. He asks to be sent to America to find a wife that is independent and offers her own opinions. His father, the King, allows him to go. he prince is given 40 days to find a wife or he must return to his country and marry the woman that is chosen for him.

Case Discussion and Verdict

A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that in cases of copyright violation it must be noted that the basic rights given by the law protects expression. However, ideas are not technically the proper subject under this law. Copyright infringement only exists if the protected expression is not appropriated correctly. In this case, the original ruling for summary judgment was based on the fact that the similarities of the book and the movie only concerned areas that were not covered by copyright law and that there was no way a jury would find that the book and the movie were substantially similar.

A summary judgment is proper in a case when there is no issue of material facts that the moving party is entitled to a judgment through the law. In this case, we rule in favor of the defendant. There is not a legitimate cause proven by the plaintiff in the matter. The previous ruling by the district court for a summary judgment in favor of the defendant will stand and the appeal for this case is dismissed.

Are you currently having a legal issue and need advice from a lawyer? Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you determine what your next step in the legal process should be. Our offices are located throughout the city of New York. We offer free consultations and can help you resolve any legal matter that you may have.

Appeal

A New York Family Lawyer the plaintiff is appealing the original verdict of his case against the defendant in which he sued the defendants claiming they were liable for the way he was treated when he was unlawfully arrested in Mexico. He was arrested for attempting to sell a car in Mexico that was believed to be stolen. The original case was dismissed.

Case History

The vehicle in question is a 2005 Cadillac Escalade that was reported as stolen in 2005. The vehicle was insured by Progressive and the company paid the owner of the car for the loss of the vehicle. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the NICB investigated the case and recovered the vehicle from New Mexico. Progressive had taken control of the title of the vehicle at the time of compensation and since the vehicle was recovered they put the vehicle up for auction on Copart, which is an online car auction site.

Gonzalez noticed the vehicle on the auction site and decided he would buy it. However, he was not the owner of a purchasing license for the site so he had one of his associates purchase the vehicle for him. A Nassau County Family Lawyer the friend bought the car, paid for it with a cashier’s check and took the title for the vehicle. He gave Gonzalez the purchase documents that were relevant, but never officially turned the title over to Gonzalez.

Gonzalez bought the car to use as a family vehicle. However, he found that the document for transfer stated for export only. In order to recover the cost of the vehicle Gonzalez drove the car to Juarez, Mexico and he tried to sell the Escalade. This caught the attention of the authorities in Mexico who ran the vehicles VIN number through a database that was not current and the vehicle was still listed as stolen.

Gonzalez showed the sales papers, but was arrested for possessing a stolen vehicle. For this, he spent 11 days in the Mexican jail before he posted bond.

The vehicle was returned to the USA and about a month after he was arrested Gonzalez went to the NICB to pick up the Escalade. However, a Queen Family Lawyer said the agent was confused about the status of the vehicle and Gonzalez left. Later Progressive informed the NICB that the vehicle was not stolen when Gonzalez was arrested.

Gonzalez decided that he no longer wanted the car and instead wanted to be compensated for the harm that he suffered while imprisoned in Mexico. It was then that the case was taken to court and Gonzalez made numerous claims including breach of contract, negligence, conversion, and malicious prosecution, and several other claims made under the laws of Texas.

Appeal Decision

This court finds that the original verdict in the case for a summary judgment to dismiss the case in favor of the defendants was correct. After reviewing the facts of the case, the ruling of this appeal is in favor of the defendants. While the arrest and prosecution of Gonzalez while in Mexico was traumatic and upon further research unnecessary, the defendants cannot be held liable for the suffering of the plaintiff at the time.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has law offices located throughout the city of New York. We can help you determine your rights in any type of legal situation that you may find yourself in. Our lawyers will work directly with you to determine which legal steps are necessary for your best interest. You may contact our offices and set up a free consultation at any time.

In 1935, a woman from Turkey and her husband ran a business in Atlanta, Georgia where they purchased oriental carpets from an Iraqi man who was born of Jewish parents. The relationship between the parties was amicable and provided a good working base for all involved. In 1941, the Iraqi man was returning to New York after a sales trip to meet with the couple in Atlanta when he had a bad traffic accident near Folkston, Georgia. Following the accident, the Iraqi man was taken to a hospital in Folkston and then transferred to Emory University Hospital for further treatment. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the Turkish woman spent many hours assisting the Iraqi man in his recovery. As a result of this close connection, the two developed a strong friendship. When he recovered, the man asked the woman if she was interested in running one of his Hotels in Miami Beach, Florida. She agreed and moved to Miami. In 1945, she divorced her husband and lived in a suite at the hotel that she managed for the Iraqi man.

They soon began a more intimate relationship. The man would visit her frequently at the hotel and was known to sometimes stay over with her at the hotel. In November of 1945, a few months following her divorce, the man bought a house in Miami Beach, Florida and told the woman to redecorate it in her own taste since it would be their marital home. The woman proceeded to redecorate and renovate the house to meet her qualifications for it. In December of 1945, the woman collected the man from the airport after he flew down from New York. They drove to the house where he told her that he loved only her and that he wanted her to be with him for life. She agreed and the following day, the went to the hotel and informed the staff that they had married.

For the next five years the couple lived together as man and wife. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the woman wore a wedding ring and diamond that the man purchased for her. They went to many functions and were introduced frequently as husband and wife. It was not unusual for them to be together and to be introduced together. In court, the woman produced Christmas cards that they had sent out with her using his last name.

In 1954, the man left the woman and told her that since they had not gotten a legal marriage that she was not entitled to any alimony from him. She lived with friends until the case came to court in New York. The man was contacted by the court and he stated that they were never married. When asked why he had allowed the marriage announcement and why they had accepted wedding presents, his only reply was that he had not wanted to embarrass the woman by pointing out that they were living together without the benefit of marriage. The court asked the woman why she thought that they were married. She stated that he had told her that he considered them married, but could not have a wedding announced because his parents are devout Jews and his mother would die if she knew that he was married to a gentile. The court asked him why he did not consider the woman his wife and he stated that they had never married. He also stated that the woman had continued to use her maiden name occasionally throughout the time that they were together.

The woman claims that even though they were not legally married, she believes that the marriage qualifies as legal under the status of common law. The court evaluated the woman’s claim by attempting to prove if the couple were considered by the general society as a whole to be married. Further, in reference to the use of the woman’s maiden name, the court dismissed that argument since it is not uncommon for a businesswoman to use her maiden name even after marriage so as not to confuse her business associates.

The question arises then as to if they entered into a contract between the two of them so as to be considered married under the laws of the state of New York. In order to determine if this was in fact a legally binding contract of marriage, the court asked the woman if the marriage was consummated the night that he told her that he wanted her to be his wife. She stated that they did consummate the marriage on that night. There is further evidence that the woman considered herself married to the man in the announcement that was made to their employees at the hotel the following day. Also, the couple held a wedding party where they introduced themselves as newly married. There was a luncheon for work associates in celebration of their marriage. Following these events, the man purchased the rings for the woman. The rings were of the type commonly worn to declare a married state. The woman assumed the man’s last name for most occasions, only infrequently using her maiden name to sign certain contracts and papers at the hotel.

The woman called 47 witnesses that identified the couple as married. Each person interviewed relayed the same information. All of their friends considered them married. The court then must determine if the words spoken on the night in the house were sufficient to be declared a contract under the law. The court stated that the man’s business was well in excess of one million dollars and that he had not attempted to assist his wife at all in her expenses since leaving her. The court expressed contempt for a man who would attempt to circumvent responsibility by claiming a lack of a piece of paper. The court found that the husband was in fact part of the contract of a marriage. The words spoken were certainly clear enough that anyone hearing them would have considered them a declaration of marriage. Couple this declaration with the purchase of the house and the instructions from the man that the woman was to decorate it to her liking, most people would make the assumption that a marriage contract had been initiated.

The law in this case found that the man was in fact, the husband of the woman. He was found responsible for providing temporary and permanent alimony, suit money and attorneys’ fees. Although the husband thought that he was going to able to circumvent the law by just telling the woman that they were married and conducting a fraud on their friends and family by claiming a marriage without paper. He did not anticipate that a verbal contract of marriage could be just as binding as one with a legal paper.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a Family Lawyer with convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area is available to help you. Divorce Court issues are confusing. Our Divorce lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through any situation, whether you need an order for protection, have a custody issue, or need assistance with a child support issue.

Most Americans believe that their homes are secure from invasion by the government as long as the government agent does not have probable cause to obtain a warrant. Prior to 1961, New York like most other states, conducted warrantless searches of a person’s home whenever they could show that they had probable cause to believe that the person lived at the residence. In 1961, Dolree Mapp was in her home when Ohio police officers arrived and demanded entry to search for her boyfriend. A New York Custody Lawyer said that Ms. Mapp demanded that they show her a warrant before she would let them in. The officers left, but returned shortly with a document that they claimed was a search warrant. Ms. Mapp snatched the paper and put it down the front of her dress. A police officer retrieved it and she was arrested for having indecent materials in a box in her cellar. She claimed that the indecent material was nude drawings from her art class. Ms. Mapp was convicted and appealed her conviction. Her Supreme Court case became a landmark case that created the requirement of search warrants at the state as well as the federal level. Prior to 1961, state officials could conduct a warrantless search to arrest a person whom they believed was guilty of a felony. Following Mapp v Ohio, warrants became required by state officials. This case changed many procedures.

It is surprising then that this argument is still being challenged. However, the sanctity of a person’s home should not be violated lightly. American’s hold the sanctity of home in high regard, that leaves the question of the constitutionality of warrantless arrests in the home unanswered. It is held as common knowledge that an officer may arrest a felon in a public place without the benefit of a warrant. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the warrantless arrest of a felon in the sanctity of their own homes is a different situation. As years progress, the requirements tighten to ensure that officers respect at all cost the sanctity of a person’s home. The arrest or seizure of a person in a public place, is less intrusive and should not be held to the same standard as an invasion of a citizen’s home. That being said, the history has been clear that no person need allow an official of the state to enter their homes without a warrant. There are exigent circumstances such as the endangerment of life that allow such intrusions. Exigent circumstances are those circumstances that are so time sensitive that a person could be seriously injured or killed if the time is taken to secure a warrant. A Queens Family Lawyer said that under exigent circumstances, an officer may enter a person’s home in order to prevent a greater wrong from being done.

The Supreme Court continues to uphold the requirement of a search warrant barring exigent circumstances for any entry into a person’s domicile. Stephen Bilkis & Associates is a Family Lawyer with convenient offices throughout New York and the Metropolitan area is available to help you. Divorce Court issues are confusing. Our Divorce lawyers can provide you with advice to guide you through any situation.

A New York Family Lawyer said the ACS also filed a petition of derivative neglect upon the two younger children of the couple alleging that since these two minors witnessed the abuse of the eldest minor child, they were considered derivatively neglected as well.

After a hearing at the family court, A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the children were ordered removed from the home of their parents. The eldest child was placed with his great grandfather on the mother’s side, his nearest relative.

The paternal grandmother of the two younger children who was a resident of Virginia went to the family court in New York and asked that she be granted child custody over her two younger grandchildren. She also asked that she be given child custody over the eldest child but the family court placed him with his next of kin.

The family court also issued orders of protection in behalf of the children and against their biological parents, prohibiting them from committing family offenses against them. They are to stay away from the children and not to have any contact with the eldest child.

The parents applied for the return of all their three children but the family court denied their application. The mother was granted visitation rights with all three children. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the father was granted visitation rights with the two youngest children who were his biological children. Pending the hearing of the paternal grandmother’s application for child custody, the paternal grandmother was also given visitation rights to the two youngest children.

After interviewing the eldest child, ACS amended its petition to include other allegations. ACS alleged that the mother left her eldest child with strangers and the father smoked marijuana in front of the children. ACS also alleged that in 2006, the eldest child was forced to sleep in the porch outside of the house after the father struck the eldest child with a belt buckle.

Pending the hearing, the two youngest children were placed in the foster care of an agency. The agency had the responsibility of bringing the children for the visitation of their parents. When the foster care agency failed to bring the children, the mother lost her temper. She began verbally abusing the employees of the foster care agency. She began threatening them. The father came in and tried to destroy the doors to the office of the foster care agency. The foster care agency called the police but the couple left before the police arrived.

As a result of the display of ill-temper of the parents, the foster care agency reported the matter to ACS which brought an application to suspend the visitation rights of the parents.

The next day, the parents learned when they arrived at the foster care agency that their visitation rights had been suspected and they began yelling and threatening the employees of the foster care agency. The father threatened that he would kidnap his own children and run away with them and no one will ever see them.

The family court suspended the visitation rights of the parents until after they have undergone mental evaluation. The mother willingly subjected herself to mental evaluation and obtained a signed release. She also completed parenting skills training and started attending therapy and anger management. The mother’s supervised agency visitation with her children was restored for three hours weekly. The paternal grandmother’s visitation was also restored.

The father eventually submitted himself to evaluation and the doctor who examined him recommended that the father be allowed supervised visitation in a secure setting. The family court received the doctor’s report and scheduled a hearing to ask him to explain his recommendation that the father be allowed supervised visitation in a secure setting.

The family court gave the paternal grandmother unsupervised weekend visitation with her two younger grandchildren. In the meantime, the family court learned that the parents of the two children had given birth to another baby and that baby had been in the physical custody of the paternal grandmother since the date of the child’s birth. The New York Family Court also learned that the paternal grandmother had already filed a petition in Virginia for the child custody of the baby.

At the New York Family Court, ACS and the foster care agency filed a new petition against the parents for derivative neglect of the youngest, the newly born infant. ACS petitioned the New York Family Court to remove the baby from the home of the paternal grandmother. The Court granted an Order of Protection in favor of the baby and against the parents directing them to have no contact with the baby.

The paternal grandmother failed to produce the baby during three hearings in the family court in New York despite being directed to do so. ACS and the foster care agency both asked that the unsupervised weekend visitation of the paternal grandmother over her two older grandchildren be suspended until she produces the baby.

In the meantime, the Virginia Family Court had ordered a case worker to visit the paternal grandmother’s home and she found the baby well cared for, well-fed and clean. She recommended that the grandmother’s home be certified as a foster home.

ACS renewed its application to remove the baby from the custody of the paternal grandmother as she continuously failed to produce the baby before the New York Family Court.

The Family Court of New York denied the request of ACS to remove the baby from the custody of her paternal grandmother. The family court ruled that since the paternal grandmother had already filed a child custody petition in Virginia, Virginia has jurisdiction over the matter. The New York Family Court ruled that since the child was born in Virginia and had been residing in Virginia since her birth, her home state is Virginia. The baby had no significant connection to New York.

Since a custody petition was pending in Virginia, the New York Family Court had no jurisdiction over the baby until Virginia declines to exercise jurisdiction or terminates the custody action pending in Virginia.

This determination of the Family Court of New York was upheld by the Supreme Court.

A New York City Child Custody Lawyer will tell you that a child who is maltreated, abused and neglected by his parents will be remanded to foster care until the parents show that they are fit to exercise their parental rights. They will also tell you that you may be required to take parenting skills seminar in order to qualify for visitation rights over your children. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, they will assist you with quality legal representation, whether you need an Order for Protection, have a custody dispute, or are filing for divorce.

A year later, the father applied to the family court to vacate the stipulated agreement because the mother had moved his children to California without his knowledge or consent. The father also moved for child custody be removed from his wife and to be given to him instead.

The mother opposed the motion stating that her husband agreed for her to move to California with their children. She also alleged that her husband who was a New York police officer often threatened her and her children with violence. She also alleged that the father did not frequently visit his children. A New York Custody Lawyer said he visited them for only ten days within a one year period. She also states that in California, she lives in the same house with her two brothers who help her take care of her children. Her parents also live nearby and see the children often.

The mother submitted affidavits executed by the father and step-mother of her former husband which enumerated the inappropriate behavior of the father in relation with his children. He allegedly told his children that their mother slept with other men and the father brandished his gun and would blow them all up.

The paternal grandparents of the children (the parents of the children’s father) also stated that when they visited their grandchildren in California, they seemed more relaxed and happier.

They did well in school and were involved in sports unlike when they were here in New York, they were withdrawn and nervous. They aver that their son (the children’s father) was having personal problems that he had to work out and in the meantime, they insist that their grandchildren are thriving in California with their mother and maternal relatives.

During the hearing before the family court in New York, the father of the children admitted that he was depressed as a result from his wife and children’s move to California. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said he did not deny any of the threats and inappropriate behavior alleged by his wife and his own parents. He also admitted that he had been infrequent with his visits with his children. The father offered no evidence to show that he is a fit to be granted child custody.

The Court however found that the father was able to prove that he only agreed for his children to go to California on vacation to see their maternal grandparents and he only agreed that it would be temporary for the summer and he was assured that they would return to New York. From this, the Family Court ruled that the mother violated the stipulated agreement when she moved her children to California permanently to reside there.

The only question left to be determined is if the family court should enforce the restriction contained in the stipulate agreement that the children will not reside farther than 200 miles from New York.

The family court held that while it is zealous to protect the visitation rights of the father who was not granted custodial rights over his children, there are exceptional circumstances in this case that show that granting the father visitation rights and restricting the residence of the children to within 200 miles of New York is inimical to the interests and welfare of the children.
The family court ruled that while New York and not California is the children’s home state, the children have lived in California for more than six months and have developed close ties there. The evidence pertaining to the children’s well-being, their education , their welfare, protection and training are all readily available in California. Also, the father’s claim for custody is weak. The family court determines that it is in the best interest of the children that the custody of the children be determined in California.

The Court agreed with the family court that New York is an inconvenient forum to determine the custody issue. A Queens Family Lawyer said the father is advised to go to California and address his custody concerns to the family court in California.

Are you wishing to reinstate your visitation rights or child custody rights? Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Speak to any of their New York City Child Custody Lawyers. Their attorneys are willing and ready to assist you in presenting your application, in presenting evidence and in arguing your case. Go to any of the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates in the New York area.

A New York Family Lawyer said the father has had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. While at the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.

After the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. In the fall of 2007, she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. In 2007, she moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. However, the relationship in Connecticut ended when the boyfriend returned to his native country, New Zealand. Hence, the mother then returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.

In March 2008, the mother met her future husband on the internet. The future husband was retired from the Air Force, lived in North Carolina and was then involved in a nation-wide job search. Ultimately, the future husband took a job with Northrop Grumman in San Diego. He had requested to work at Northrop Grumman's Long Island branch, but the company could not accommodate his request. The mother and the future husband became engaged in May of 2008.

Soon after the engagement, the mother approached the father about moving to California to live with her future husband. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the father was concerned about the distance and the stability of the mother's new relationship. The parties therefore met with a mediator to try to work out an arrangement by which the mother could leave the child with the father temporarily while she settled in California. The mediator sent a letter, dated 12 May 2008, that purported to memorialize the parties' agreement. The letter stated that the parties agreed that the child would stay with the father from 27 June 2008 until 31 December 2008, with the mother making several long weekend visits to New York. Mother and son were also to participate in a webcam phone call two to three times a week. The letter did not address where the child would live after 31 December 2008. However, the father refused to sign an agreement embodying these terms and instead asked the mother to sign over custody to him. She refused. The mother left for California on 26 June 2008. She claims that she never intended the father to have permanent custody, but arrangements to move to California had become irreversible by the time she learned that the father did not agree.

On 17 July 2008, the father filed a petition seeking sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, claiming that the mother had abandoned the child, according to a Nassau County Family Lawyer.

On 1 December 2008, the mother filed a petition for relocation. The court consolidated the two petitions. Before the hearing, the father withdrew his petition for sole custody. Accordingly, the court considered only the relocation application.

Meanwhile, the mother and the retired Air Force got married in April of 2009. The mother gave birth to a son on 4 April 2009.

Should the mother’s relocation petition be granted?

The courts have held that each relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances and with the predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child. Among the factors the court must consider are: (1) "each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move," (2) the quality of the child's relationship with each parent, (3) the impact of the move on the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, (4) the degree to which the move may enhance the custodial parents’ and child's life economically, emotionally and educationally, and (5) "the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements.

Here, the case makes abundantly clear that it is the rights and needs of the children that must be accorded the greatest weight.

There is no question that the California home is financially more stable than the father's home. The stepfather has a steady job that provides his family with health insurance. By contrast, the father is not currently working. Although he has been offered a job as a teacher's aide, he has postponed his start date. He is currently on some type of public assistance and receives money from his parents in Ireland. He readily admits that "it's not been easy like money wise." He is not currently in a relationship. Given his bleak financial circumstances with no career or family in New York, it would appear that there is nothing keeping the father from moving to San Diego himself to be closer to his son.

Moreover, living in San Diego ensures that the child will grow up in the same house as his half-brother. The father agreed that it was very important for the child to have a brother in his life. He even testified that he actually expected the child eventually to move to California so that he could be with his brother; the father was merely opposed to the date of the move. The mother established that the child would have access to an education that was just as good as, if not better than, his school in New York. Moreover, a Queens Family Lawyer said she testified that the stepfather’s status as a veteran will allow the child to attend college within the State of California's university system free of charge.

In addition, the record also reflects that the mother went out of her way to facilitate communication between the child and his father. The same could not be said of the father with respect to communication between the child and his mother.

Lastly, the child's own attorney recommended that the court permit the mother to relocate with the child, a factor that militates in favor of affirming the result the court reached.

On the argument that the mother is putting her own romantic interests ahead of her son's welfare is rank speculation. It is just as likely that the mother, herself as an only child, was pursuing marriage aggressively to produce a sibling for her son before he became much older and an intact family. Regardless of the mother's motivations, it is the best interest of the child that must guide the court’s decision. Relocation ensures that the child will live in a family that is stable financially. He will be with his brother. Although the amount of time spent with his father will diminish; however, the court finds that the visitation schedule requiring the mother to pay for air travel for the child to be with the father on numerous extended weekend visits throughout the year, in addition to extended summer and holiday visits, does not deprive the father of the opportunity to maintain a close relationship with his son.

Accordingly, the court grants the mother’s petition to permit her to relocate to California with the parties' child.

A child’s custody, more often than not, is the hardest issue a court must resolve in every divorce case. If you are knotted in a situation similar to the above mentioned case, please do contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for a free consult. Seek legal advice from our experts, viz: New York Divorce Lawyers, New York Child Custody Lawyers, New York Family Lawyers, etc.

The district court heard the case and reviewed the federal and New York laws in the manner granted a summary judgment that was in favor of the defendant for each claim made by the insurance companies. For the court came to the conclusion that there were 8 accounts where no duty came to the seven insurance companies and the receivers failed to exhibit causation for the other 5 accounts regarding the tort claims. The court decided that there was no way to find anyone at Dreyfus Service Corporation who deliberately ignored the money laundering activities of Frankel in regard to the RICO claim.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the plaintiffs are appealing this initial verdict of a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Case Background

From the years 1981 through 1991, Frankel solicited $11 million in funds for an investment project that he named Creative Partners. He used $5 million of this money for his own personal use. To replenish this money he started looking for banks for purchasing and looting. When this scheme failed, he began purchasing and looting insurance companies. These fraudulent activities continued throughout the nineties with Frankel recruiting more individuals to help him.

In 1994, Dreyfus Service Corporation, which is a broker/dealer company that is registered, unknowingly became a part of Frankel’s schemes. Frankel used the company to transfer funds from the insurance companies to his personal accounts that were set up in Switzerland.

The activities of Frankel were finally realized in 1999 when the insurance regulators become conscious that they were managing looted insurers. Each of the companies were placed in liquidation and the Receivers brought litigation against over 70 parties. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the individual claims were joined in the current action and DSC was added in 2001. Almost all of the other defendants entered bankruptcy settled, or defaulted. After some time, DSC filed their motion for summary judgment. The receivers filed two different motions for a partial summary judgment.

Case Review and Verdict

The district court decided that under the laws of New York, Dreyfus Service Corporation did not owe the insurance companies duty of protection from the looting done by Frankel. It was found that the company had no idea that Frankel was conducting fraudulent activities and there is no proof that anyone from the company ignored facts that could have led to this discovery.

Our finding is in favor of the defendant, Dreyfus Service Corporation. The receivers have not provided any information in regards to the accounts that prove their case. For this reason, the district courts initial ruling for a summary judgment that is in favor of Dreyfus Service Corporation is upheld.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we can help you determine what steps that you should take legally for your current situation,whether you have a divorce or custody issue, or need an order for protection. Our lawyers are experts in all fields of the law and will work with you directly. We have offices located conveniently throughout the city of New York and you may contact us to set up a free consultation at any time

Is it in the child’s best interest to award petitioner custody and compel the child to remain in New York with petitioner or to maintain custody with respondent and allow the child to relocate to the Aramco compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia?

It is axiomatic that disputes over relocation can be most problematic, emotional and difficult for all concerned. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the relocation to Saudi Arabia by its very nature would mean a dramatic change in the child’s life and in his relationship with his father, the non-custodial parent. Such a distant relocation has the potential, as the petitioner fears, to interfere with or even defeat future meaningful involvement between the child and his father. The decision is made even more difficult when it was clear from all of the testimony at the trial that both the petitioner and respondent are loving, caring and giving parents and that the child has a deep loving, committed and caring relationship with both of his parents.
While the respective rights of the custodial and noncustodial parents are unquestionably significant factors that must be considered, it is the rights and needs of the children that must be accorded the greatest weight, since they are innocent victims of their parents' decision to divorce and are the least equipped to handle the stresses of the changing family situation.
It must be noted that, regardless of the outcome of the herein matter, respondent will be leaving New York City with her two younger children, the child’s siblings, to join the step-Father who has already moved to Dhahran to pursue financially rewarding employment with Aramco. Accordingly, although the court finds that maintaining the status quo would undoubtedly be in the child’s best interest and is something that the child himself would desire; to compel such an outcome is regrettably outside this court's power. While the court has the power to enjoin the child from relocating to Saudi Arabia upon a finding that custody with petitioner is in the child’s best interest, the court may not enjoin respondent from relocating without the child.

The court in making its decision has considered and balanced all of the many different and relevant factors which are appropriately considered in determining which of the outcomes is in the child’s best interest.

While it is clear that "exceptional circumstances" do not exist, however, it is equally clear that respondent's request to relocate to Saudi Arabia is brought in good faith, to promote continued stability for the child and his siblings, to maintain or strengthen respondent's financial position without sacrificing her legitimate and established desire to care full-time for the child and his siblings, and to otherwise improve the family's quality of life. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the desire for such pursuit has been recognized in a landmark case to be proper factors in considering a request to relocate.

An additional indication behind the legitimacy of respondent's decision to seek relocation to Saudi Arabia was that she herself was raised in the Aramco compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Indeed, respondent testified that her father was employed by Aramco and that she was happy growing up in Dhahran, has fond memories of going to school there, and that she thrived in what she credibly describes as a comfortable, safe, privileged and secure environment. Respondent acknowledges that it was her idea to encourage her husband to seek employment from Aramco in a position as a civil engineer. The court heard that respondent used some of her contacts from her days in Dhahran to help her husband secure his new employment with Aramco. While the court finds that stepfather, from his own statements, failed to make great efforts to obtain comparable employment in the United States, the opportunity in Saudi Arabia now presents itself as a means for financial independence with many potential additional benefits flowing to the child and his family.

The court finds that to compel the child to live here in New York away from his mother and siblings without the benefits of any extended family support would not be in his best interest notwithstanding the fact that he has a good relationship with his father. The child has always known and enjoyed the supportive benefits of his "stay at home" mother and the company and developing relationship with his younger siblings. In addition, the child has developed a healthy and loving relationship with his stepfather who loves and treats him equally to his own two children.

Moreover, petitioner has not attempted to secure gainful employment sufficient to support his child despite pressing his efforts over a long period of time to obtain custody and enjoin his child’s relocation. His income tax returns and net worth statements do not show that he has the necessary income to provide for his child’s minimum needs should the court grant his application and award him custody of his son.

While economic stability is not the only criteria and should not be given greater weight than the numerous other factors to be considered by the court in weighing the child’s best interests, it remains a legitimate factor not to be discarded.

To be sure, both parents are capable and would provide the child with an equal amount of love and emotional support. Respondent, however, has been the child’s primary nurturer since his birth. In addition, in respondent's continued care and custody, the child would also maintain the additional loving and emotional support that his siblings undoubtedly already have given to him and will provide him in the future.

On the quality of education provided in the Aramco compound, the court can only conclude that compared to the school system in Coxsackie, New York, both appear capable of educating its students. Both systems seem to have succeeded to the degree that they have educated individuals in the past and, with the help of parents, appear capable of educating children in the future. Also, the court must take into account the fact that the child, should his stepfather remain employed by Aramco when he is ready to enter High School, will be able to attend a first class private school at no cost to his parents. It is likely that the child would then be able to attend a good college which eventually would provide him with the tools to compete in the employment market as a well-educated person.

On fear of physical danger to the child as a potential victim or target of an anti-American sentiment in Saudi Arabia or terrorism, the court is deeply troubled by the prospect of sending the child to such area. Unfortunately, the court is also aware that there is no place in the world where a person is absolutely safe from a terrorist attack or, indeed, where a person is safe from an attack of random violence. The court must conclude that it cannot insure the child’s absolute safety anywhere in this turbulent world. It may be that the child might be as safe or even physically safer in the Aramco compound in Dhahran where he will be in a secured environment protected not only by Aramco's security force but, if necessary, by the United States military which is stationed in close proximity to Dhahran.

There is no doubt that in exchange for a physically "safe" environment in the Dhahran compound, as petitioner urges, the child may sacrifice the more expansive freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of dress which would otherwise be afforded to him in America. The court acknowledges the fact that individuals living in the Aramco compound in Dhahran will not have the pleasure of participating in the many varied cultural activities available in New York City or other large metropolitan areas. However, the court will note that this fact is true for many Americans not living in or near a large metropolitan area solely because this kind of culture is not something that interests them or because they do not have the means to travel and participate in these activities.

Finally, as it concerns the lack of cultural outlets in the compound, the court believes that this can be compensated and rectified during the frequent periods when the child will be out of school and vacationing with his family or visiting with petitioner. The court also believes that in this day of "instant communication" through the use of computers, television, videos and other techniques, the issue of cultural deprivation as a result of isolation is not as problematic as it may have been before the tools of modern life: the child will be able to share in the arts, theater and music, if not necessarily in person, then through the use of modern communications.

As noted, maintaining the status quo is not an available outcome for the herein court to compel. The testimony presented in support of petitioner focuses upon the conclusion that his child "is far more attached to him than to either of his siblings. Such a conclusion, even if supported by the record, entirely ignores the importance of maintaining the child’s present relationship with his mother, his primary nurturer since birth. Based upon the credible testimony at the hearing, including the court's in-camera interview with the child, the court finds insufficient factual support for such a conclusion. The facts indicate that the parties were never married and that petitioner has only alternate weekend and Monday visitation.

The court viewed home videos showing the child with his mother, stepfather and his two half siblings. The first tape, presented by respondent, was created after the commencement of the trial but the second tape, presented by petitioner, showed the child at home with the family prior to the beginning of the trial. Both video tapes, while painfully repetitious, nevertheless showed the child acting as a normal child, playing with his siblings or by himself. Respondent's tape, while created for purposes of this litigation, did portray a normal and close knit family unit.

Petitioner's concerns for his right to continued visitation present the most troubling aspect in the herein matter. While respondent has assured petitioner and the herein court that the child shall be allowed the significant time noted above to visit with petitioner in New York, enforcement for non-compliance of this promise, including a potential change in custody to petitioner, would not be a practical remedy simply because the relocation to Saudi Arabia will place the child and respondent outside the jurisdictional power of the court for purposes of enforcing the court's directives.

Nonetheless, the court finds that the quantitative and qualitative losses that petitioner may suffer for a meaningful access with his child do not outweigh the benefits of the relocation. In addition, the court finds that if relocation were not permitted, the child would be deprived from the existing and meaningful relationship with his mother and siblings which would cause great pain and turmoil and would not be in the child’s best interest.

While the court cannot guarantee petitioner enforcement of his rights to continued meaningful visitation and contacts with his son and such rights are indeed invaluable and priceless to both petitioner and his child, respondent's compliance with the following conditions before relocation is permitted may provide some deterrent against respondent's failure to abide by the visitation schedule she herself has promised, to wit: the posting of a bond; submit to the continuing jurisdiction of the herein court as it concerns future visitation and custody disputes; propose a visitation schedule with proof that reservations were made and round trip airline tickets were already purchased for the child’s first scheduled visit with petitioner; hire, at respondent’s expense, a computer consultant in both New York and Dhahran to select, purchase and set up compatible computer systems with laser printers in both petitioner's residence in New York and in the child’s new residence in Dhahran to enable petitioner and son to communicate on the internet and by fax; the child’s computer system shall be placed in his bedroom which will be accessed through a dedicated phone line; the child’s room shall have a telephone with an answering machine and a separate dedicated phone line for petitioner and the child to utilize; and, respondent shall propose a reasonable schedule of communication and provide proof that the aforesaid systems and telephone have been installed, are fully operational and that the dedicated phone lines are in place.

For legal advice on matters similar to the above, or to address a child support matter, or obtain an order for protection, get in touch with Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Have a free consultation with our legal experts so you can plan the legal steps necessary to protect your rights or that of your child’s.

A complainant father is a United States citizen and his wife as an Italian national who is also a United States citizen and has one child, born in Italy and has dual citizenship.

Apparently, a decision of the divorce was entered in New York. The court finds that it had no authority over custody issues of the child because the boy had lived in New York for only 9 out of his 27 months since birth. As a result, there were no court orders in New York with regard to child custody, visitation or maintenance. Subsequent in filing of the proceedings, the mother filed same proceedings in Rome and the father was permitted to the court in Rome to enter orders for child custody and visitation.

The civil court of Rome granted the divorce and awarded the mother a sole custody of the child. A New York Custody Lawyer said the decision permitted the mother to decide whether she wanted to reside in Italy or in the United States and provided for the father to have visitation under both circumstances. However, the father filed an appeal in the appeal court of Rome requesting joint custody of their child and for a change of visitation.

Before the civil court of Rome decision, the mother with the child and the father were living separately in New York. Subsequent to the court decision, the mother petitioned the family court in New York to modify the Italian court's order of visitation and to suspend the father's visitation rights with the child on the grounds that the father had abused their child. The father then filed a cross motion on the said matter seeking to modify the Italian order and to obtain sole custody of their child.

Two days before the court's decision, the mother's allegations of abuse were unfounded. The mother fled with the child to Italy and it is a violation in a specific court order. Thereafter, the father filed a violation petition against the mother under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Consequently, the court dismissed the offense filed by the mother. The court also issued three orders which states that New York was the child's home state and that the father was authorized to accept immediate physical custody of him from law enforcement personnel upon execution of the warrant directing the child's seizure, that awarding the father temporary legal custody; and that the mother's removal of their child from the United States going to Italy violated the court's express order. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the court also directed the mother to return the child to New York and requesting the state and the federal authorities as well as the Italian authorities to assist in the enforcement of the order. The mother's attorney appeared in court alone and indicated on the record that the mother had fled to Italy because the mother does not believe that she will get a fair hearing in the court.

Meanwhile, in Italy, the mother appeared in the appeal court of Rome to get a temporary ruling that she still had sole custody and she wish to reopen the investigation into her abuse allegations.

Thereafter, the court decided to reconsider the propriety of the warrants and orders. At that point, the court vacated the order granting temporary custody to the father, as well as the order directing that the child be returned to the United States on the ground that the court did not have the legal authority to issue them since the Italian court had ordered that the mother have sole custody. However, the court did not vacate the order for the arrest of the mother since she had clearly violated the family court's order by taking the child out of the jurisdiction.
After the oral argument, the court dismissed the mother's petition for modification of an order of visitation of another court due to her failure to appear in the court and the fact that the allegations about abuse were deemed to be false. The court also finds that the court's prior orders would be vacated to delete any direction that the child be returned to New York and/or placed in the father's custody.

The father then moved for an order directing that his petition for sole custody of their child be scheduled for an investigation and a final disposition consistent with the child's best interests. In an oral decision, the family court denied the motion for investigation, vacated all outstanding arrest warrants and dismissed the proceeding.

On appeal, the father asserts that the court did and does have authority and his cross petition in the court improperly denied the investigation on child custody.

Based on records, the court had authority to modify the child custody order of the Italian court because New York was the child's home state at the time both the petition and the cross petition were filed. A Queens Family Lawyer said the home state as defined by the law is the state in which a child has lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the beginning of the child’s custody proceeding.

On appeal, however, the mother argues that home state matter and further argue that the New York court do not have authority because the father's appeal of the Italian court's sole custody order is pending in Rome. The mother relies on domestic relations law.

Based on the record, the court also erred in the decision that New York to be an inconvenient forum pursuant to domestic relations law. The court failed to consider the relevant legal factors and by commencing the instant action in New York, the mother purposely availed herself of that state's authority. Further, the Italian court was the proper authority for the initial child custody proceeding because the child had lived in New York for only 9 out of his 27 months since birth, and those nine months were apparently not immediately preceding the commencement of the action. By the time the mother filed to modify the Italian custody order in family court, Italy no longer had exclusive, continuing authority because New York had become the child's home state and both parents were living in New York by that time.

To affirm the order of the court would basically give the mother a choice of authority and thus the associated right to disregard any orders of the court of which she availed herself when she failed to obtain the desired outcome.

Contrary to the mother's assertion, previous decision and a convention doesn’t apply to the case because the present proceeding was expressly brought in state court under the UCCJEA and was not an action brought under the convention. In any event, previous decision and that convention apply to situations where a child is wrongfully removed from a foreign country, brought to and then retained in the United States. The court decision to dismiss the cross petition for modification of the child’s custody order issued by a foreign court is reverse.
Not all couple’s story end like a fairy tale ending. Misunderstandings could bring deeper problems which sometimes lead to divorce. If you want an advice from the NY Divorce Lawyers, you can visit or call the office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates. A NY Child Custody Lawyer and NY Child Support Lawyer can also provide helpful assessment and legal guidance on your legal problems relating to your children.

The decree ordered that all matters arising in the future pertaining to the enforcement of the decree or to requested modifications of any provision whether pertaining to child support, visitation or child custody, be and the same are referred to a family court or to the appropriate court having authority to the issue. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the separation agreement indicates that the couple was married and lived in New York and the wife shall have custody of the children of the marriage. The husband's visitation rights were outlined in some detail.

The issue came on for a proceeding and the father appeared by counsel but the mother failed to appear. The court was informed that the child who is the subject in the proceeding lives in Connecticut but runs away and is in New York with the father.

The issue came again in court. There was no appearance by the father, but he was represented by his counsel. There was also no appearance again by the mother. A law guardian was appointed for the child and the issue was referred to the probation department for a child custody investigation.

Consequently, the court received from the mother a motion to dismiss the petition. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the mother moves for dismissal on the grounds that the court has lack of authority on the issue and that she was not served with notice of the proceeding in a timely manner. Also enclosed in the motion were copies of papers prepared by the mother for a proceeding in Superior Court in Connecticut. The court received additional papers related to a proceeding in Connecticut from the mother.

The father submitted an affidavit in response to his former wife's motion to dismiss. The father asserts that his son arrived from Connecticut by bus in the early morning and the child had previously refused to return to his mother's home in Connecticut following a visitation period, but had been persuaded to do so by his father. He further states that their child was born and resided in New York until the time of the implementation of the separation agreement. The father prays the court to deny the mother’s motion to dismiss and argues that the court has authority to hear the pending issue.

Based on records, in New York the best interest of the child is a primary importance in custody determinations. The concern of the New York courts with the best interests of the child is when it is under traditional conflicts of law principles, significant contacts with New York have been established and there is considerable evidence as to the child's future care, protection, training and personal relationships within the state is reflected in the decisional law. Further, in the beginning of the uniform child custody jurisdiction act, certain jurisdictional bases were statutorily set out which had to be met before the courts could assume authority in child custody matters and look to the child's best interests.

The family court has no authority on the subject matter over the question of child custody. The mother's motion to dismiss the proceeding is granted and the petition filed seeking a modification of a divorce decree is dismissed.

When marital problems strike a home no one can help the family but themselves. Whether you need an order for protection, have a custody issue or need to file for divoce, if the issues remain unsolved, New York Family Attorneys can help. A New York Visitation Attorney can provide you with options to pursue when visitation troubles arise. A New York Child Custody Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can also assist you when you are trying to consider child custody actions

Consequently, respondent was charged with possession and sale of heroin, a drug crime in violation of the criminal law.

At trial, the aforesaid photograph was received in evidence without objection and the police undercover testified that there was no doubt that the person shown in the photograph was respondent and also made a positive in-court identification without objection.

The seller was convicted of the crime.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The seller, now respondent, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. He alleges that the admission of the identification testimony at his state trial deprived him of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District Court dismissed the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that evidence as to the photograph should have been excluded, regardless of reliability, because the examination of the single photograph was unnecessary and suggestive, and that the identification was unreliable in any event.

Issue: Should the identification be excluded as evidence for violation of the due process clause?

The high court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not compel the exclusion of the identification evidence.

A New York Custody Lawyer under the law, reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony for confrontation. The determination of a violation of the due process clause depends on the totality of the circumstances. The factors to be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure in assessing reliability have been set out by the court in its rulings, and include the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.

It must be noted that under the totality of the circumstances, there is no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The police undercover was not a casual observer but a trained police officer who had a sufficient opportunity to view the suspect, accurately described him, positively identified respondent's photograph as that of the suspect, and made the photograph identification only two days after the crime. The police undercover, as a specially trained, assigned, and experienced officer, is expected to pay scrupulous attention to detail, for he knew that subsequently he would have to find and arrest his vendor. In addition, he knew that his claimed observations would be subject later to close scrutiny and examination at any trial.
On the accuracy of description, it was given to another police officer within minutes after the transaction. It included the vendor's race, his height, his build, the color and style of his hair, and the high cheekbone facial feature. It also included clothing the vendor wore. No claim has been made that respondent did not possess the physical characteristics so described.

The aforementioned indicators of the ability of the police undercover to make an accurate identification are hardly outweighed by the corrupting effect of the challenged identification itself. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that although identifications arising from single-photograph displays may be viewed in general with suspicion, there is little pressure on the witness to acquiesce in the suggestion that such a display entails. The photograph was viewed by the undercover after two days and was examined by him alone; there was no coercive pressure to make an identification arising from the presence of another. The identification was made in circumstances allowing care and reflection.

Moreover, a perusal of the facts dictates that respondent was arrested in the very apartment where the undercover sale had taken place, and that the police undercover acknowledged his frequent visits to that apartment.

A Queens Family Lawyer said that accordingly, there was no violation of the due process clause; the identification is admissible in evidence.

Those criminally charged are not without rights. Certain rights are accorded to those criminally charged to see to it that justice is served. But how you could defend yourself and enforce your rights depend entirely on the ability of your legal representative. Thus, you must pick your lawyer intelligently. Choose Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We are highly competitive, experienced, skilled, and determined in each and every case we handle. Our Queens Criminal Lawyer, Queens Drug Lawyer, etc. are all set to provide you with a free consultation.

The father commenced a divorce action alleging cruel and inhuman treatment. Initially, the mother appeared without a counsel but later retained one. The mother was allegedly served with the summons with notice in an action for divorce at a Family Court.

In support of her request that she be awarded full legal child custody, the mother alleges that the father is merely trying to avoid paying child support and that he does not really care about child custody. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said she argues that, until recently, the father lacked involvement with the child since the child was conceived. The mother contends that the father demanded a paternity test to prove his relationship to the child, but even after paternity was established, the father had little to do with the child. The mother avers that, as recently as 2005, the father was willing to forego child custody, in favor of the mother.

The mother argues that if the father is awarded child custody, he will limit access between her and her child. The mother contends that the father will be influenced by his parents, who do not like her, and that they would encourage him to keep the child from her. She claims that the father's parents took away the father's use of a car when they learned the couple was seeing each other after the divorce was commenced. The mother further contends that while the child was living with the father, her sister who was visiting from California called the father hoping to see the child. The mother asserts that the father refused to allow her sister to visit the child, even though the visit would have taken place while the father was at work and would not have interfered with any plans he may have had with the child. In contrast, the mother testifies that she will allow the father to see the child as she did when she complied with court orders and flew the child from California to New York to see his father. Furthermore, the mother contends that she voluntarily brought the child to the New Jersey Army base so that the father could visit with the child prior to being deployed to Iraq; however, the father avers that her visit to the Army base was motivated more by an attempt to divert more of his military paycheck than to provide him access to their child.

The father filed an order to show cause seeking visitation with their minor child which was granted. The matrimonial proceeding was stayed when the father was deployed to Iraq. Thereafter, upon his return, the couple entered into a written stipulation on the issues of child custody and visitation, which the court ordered. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer said the couple’s stipulation resolved the issues of child custody and visitation and provided that the mother would have custody of the child and that she could relocate with the child to California. The stipulation provided that the mother shall have sole custody of the infant subject to schedule of visitation to be arrived at by the couple and their counsel. The father shall visit with the child on next court date. On consent, the issue of relocation is resolved and the mother shall not be asked to relocate with the child from the State of California. California shall remain the child's residence.

While in the mother's custody, the child returned from a visit with the father with redness around his penis. Allegedly concerned about the child's well-being, the mother took him to the emergency room. At the hospital, a doctor filed an Administration for Children's Services (ACS) report questioning whether the child had been sexually abused.

It is certain that, fearing that the child would be taken away, the mother cut the child's hospital security bracelet, and took him to Connecticut, after learning that ACS was investigating both parents. Thereafter, ACS placed the child with the paternal grandparents, and both parents were named as respondents in an abuse proceeding.

In response to the ACS petition, a hearing was held in a Family Court, where the judge initially issued an order restricting the child's removal from the State of New York. The parties appeared in the court but the divorce action was stayed until the abuse proceeding was concluded. Additionally, the court issued an order restricting the child's removal from the State of New York. A judge issued a decision and order granting the mother's application. At the conclusion of the heavily contested hearing, the court concludes that the child's medical condition was not an injury. Therefore, it does not need to inquire further whether it was the result of sexual or physical abuse or neglect. The application by the mother is granted for the court finds the expert opinion on the matter wrong. The conclusion was based upon a cursory investigation that was incomplete and procedurally flawed. When weighed against the pediatric expert opinion of another doctor, the child's life long treating physician, the court finds the expert’s testimony more credible, persuasive and convincing...

Moreover, the court found the explanations by both parents persuasive. Although the court finds the mother's testimony contrived and tailored, nonetheless, there is simply no evidence to suggest that she did anything to the child nor allowed anyone to care for the child who may have done something to him. There is no evidence that the father did anything nor is there anything that remotely points out that anyone else may have caused the child's condition.
The mother denied making many statements that all the testifying witnesses said she made. Although it calls into questioning her credibility based upon her truthfulness as to collateral matters, the court is convinced that as to the ultimate issue, there is no imminent risk to the child's life or health if he were to be returned to his mother. Although her behavior was arguably inappropriate when she removed the child from the hospital, without first notifying hospital personnel, nonetheless, there were no medical or other safety concerns at the juncture. The child was simply awaiting test results and no longer in need of any treatment. Removing the child rose to neither any civil or criminal infraction. Her conduct must be viewed in the context of a bitterly contested matrimonial action and not as a child protective one. The mother must learn to recognize that her immediate desire to flee or to strike out whenever challenged or confronted with a position inapposite to hers is inappropriate and counter-productive to her and her child. She must stop acting out of impulse without considering the consequences of her actions or she will lose the opportunity to have child custody. The court cautions the mother not to give into her impulses or to jump to erroneous conclusions and urges her not to file reports with authorities unless there is a good faith basis to do so.

The opportunity is being provided to the mother in part because of the domestic violence, clear power imbalance and the court's belief that the father knew all along where the child was in California and waited for an opportune time in his life to regain custody of the child. Given the information presented in the father's writ application, the court had no alternative but to place the child in the father's care during the substantiated period of time of litigation with the mother having limited access to the child. The mother should have never left New York with the child; however, the court agrees with the attorney for the child that the father's explanations of trying to locate the mother and child were disingenuous.

The court will hold the mother to her testimony that she will reside in New York City as a requirement for retaining child custody. In doing so, the court finds that the mother is credible as to her intentions to provide meaningful contact between the child and father. The court recognizes that the mother has created a suitable home for the child to move into with a new room for the child. Under the scenario, the father will be able to have regular visits with the child.

The child shall have parenting time with the father, every other weekend, to be picked up from school on Friday at the conclusion of the school day and returned, directly to school, on Monday morning at the beginning of the school day. If the father cannot make arrangements to have the child returned to school at the conclusion of the weekend, he shall return the child to the mother, curbside only, on that Sunday at 8:00 p.m., with telephone notice to the mother. The couple shall alternate New Year's day, Martin Luther King day, President's weekend, school winter recess, school spring recess, Memorial day, Labor day, Columbus day, Thanksgiving weekend and school winter intercession New Year's Eve. The parties should also alternate religious holidays. Commencing September 2008, the father will have the child for Labor Day weekend and the couple will alternate holidays accordingly thereafter. The child shall always be with the mother on Mother's day and the father on Father's day.

The father shall have unfettered access to all medical, dental, psychological and educational records of the child. The father shall receive notification of all medical appointments and school events and extra-curricular activities and shall attend same if he so desires. He shall have the right to attend all parent teacher conferences, receive all report cards, standardized test results, admission test notifications and doctor’s appointments. If the child is admitted to a hospital or receives emergency medical treatment he shall be notified immediately and shall be allowed to attend and visit the child and participate in planning for the child's medical treatment. The father shall be able to telephone the child each day at a time agreed upon by the parties and said conversations shall not be monitored. During periods of vacation each party shall know the location and telephone number to enable access to the child. The child's passport shall be maintained by the father. If the mother seeks to leave the country with the child she shall do so only with written permission of the father (said permission shall not be unreasonably withheld) or court order. The father shall be informed and receive copies of all plane tickets purchased on behalf of the child.

The court recognizes that the two parties have very different parenting styles and very different outlooks on life. While each must respect the others parenting styles, they must understand that their child deserves, and must have, full cooperation of both parents in order to thrive. The court negatively views any attitude or actions that limit access to the child or that appears to demean the other parent to the child.

In determining child custody, a NY Child Custody Attorney must not look upon the interest of a parent as a vehicle for punishing one another. A New York Child Support Lawyer must remember that the true test of determining the amount of support that parents should provide their child would have a significant effect in the best interests of the child. Whether you have a custody dispute, or need an order for protection, contact Stephen Bilkis and Associates for assistance.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother and the daughter came to New York. The father joined them in New York and stayed with them for six weeks but he returned to California. A year after that, in 1978, the mother and her daughter returned to California. They stayed there until 1979. After this, the mother and her daughter returned to New York and continued to live there.

The husband who stayed in California filed a divorce proceeding in the Superior Court of California. A New York Custody Lawyer said the judge there ordered their divorce and awarded sole child custody of their daughter to the mother and gave the father reasonable visitation rights.

A year later, in 1981, a dispute arose between the father and the mother regarding the enforcement of the father’s visitation rights. The father brought a suit in California asking an enforcement of his visitation rights or, if that is not possible, to award him sole child custody.
The wife went to California and appeared before the Court. She challenged the jurisdiction of the court over her daughter who was a resident of New York. She also raised the issue of their daughter’s severe emotional reaction to being turned over to the custody of her father. The father withdrew his application for sole child custody and the mother and the father tried to reach an agreement as to his visitation rights. The mother then flew back to New York.

A year later, the wife was unable to return to California to appear before the Court there and was declared in default. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the wife had a pelvic inflammatory disease and had chicken pox. In her absence the California Court changed the custody over their daughter from the mother to the father.

The mother filed an action before the Family Court of New York. The only question is whether or not the New York Family Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide this case when a court in California had already exercised jurisdiction over the issue of child custody.

The Court held that the California Court had no jurisdiction to modify custody arrangements. It is New York and the courts of New York which has jurisdiction over the issue of child custody because the child is a resident of New York and her home state is New York.

The Court resolved to recognize the divorce decree issued by the California Court as valid. A Queens Family Lawyer said the original award of custody to the mother made in the original divorce proceedings in California is also recognized as valid. But the subsequent order of the California Court revoking the award of child custody to the mother and granting child custody to the father cannot be recognized as valid. For this reason, the New York Family Court takes jurisdiction over the case filed by the mother in New York. The Court will treat the mother’s petition in New York as an “emergency” action to protect the child. The Family Court granted a temporary restraining order to stop the father from taking custody over their daughter. He is ordered to refrain from interfering with the mother’s custody of their daughter. His visitation rights are suspended pending a full hearing on the merits of the case.

Are you on the brink of losing custody over your child? You need the advice and expertise of a New York Child Custody Lawyer who can listen to the facts of your case and advice you on the viability of bringing an action to protect your child. The NYC Child Custody Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates are willing to assist you. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates today and speak to any of their NY Child Custody Attorneys and begin the process of securing your right to have custody of your child.