New York Family Law Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was one particular case that a New York Family Lawyer studied which might sound not so common when it comes to cases of child custody or visitation rights. It involves the presence of two minor kids named only as I.S. and C.S. Both of their parents are already dead with their mother dying after giving birth to C.S. Following this scenario, both of them stayed in the custody of their maternal grandfather along with his wife, which went on for four months. Their father died out of a car accident.

When this happened, the two guardians provided for the primary care of the children. As all these were happening, the other set of grandparents in the side of the father, were constantly getting in touch with their grandkids as well. It did not take long before the two acting as guardians decided to file a petition to adopt their two grandkids. The two are defending in court that this is the best way they think that they can serve the kids and give them all the benefits they deserve.

It was without any doubt who also looked into this case that both were actually fit to become parents of the kids. But there was evidence discovered that before the father of the children died, he requested for his kids to be raised by his own parents; the paternal grandparents. It seemed hard to decide on this since both sets of grandparents are very loving to both kids. And it was apparent as well that the two kids also love all their grandparents, whichever parents’ side.

The court decided that the two kids deserve the love and care that both sets of grandparents can give. Now that their parents are dead, it is just right for both sets of grandparents to not be hindered in getting involved in their grandkids’ lives. This is of course regardless of where the two kids choose to stay. What the court did is to not grant the adoption request of the maternal grandparents and also deny the primary guardianship request of the other side of grandparents. The kids will remain in the usual setup of I.S. and C.S. to stay with their maternal grandparents but they cannot adopt the kids. The paternal grandparents were also given their own visitation rights to the kids.

This made the maternal grandparents to still fight it out in court saying that they are both fit to become the adoptive parents of the kids. Again, it was reemphasized that it is only the duty of the court to grant the adoption request if this would be for the greater benefits of the children. Yes, they may both be fit enough to be guardians, or moreover parents, but this could create more hassle and bias for the other set of grandparents. If they would be given the right to adopt the kids, then they will be given the power to deny visitation of the other set of grandparents; which is not ideal at all.

Cases of child visitation rights and child support or custody are very sensitive items to handle that it would be best to get the support and assistance of a reliable attorney from Stephen Bilkis and Associates. We have offices to serve you throughout the New York area, including locations in Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx. We also have offices in Suffolk County and Nassau County on Long Island, as well as Westchester County. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW. Whether you need help with an adoption, an order for protection, or a visitation issue, we are here to help.

When families break down, it is the children who suffer so much. When they start growing up in an environment that is unresolved, they also tend to create chaotic environments on their own. If we care for the future generations of this country, then it is important that we help each other out in informing families on how it is really to raise one. You would learn a lot of values and rights when you get to review some child visitation rights cases explored by a credible New York Family Lawyer.

This case was between the Department of Children and Families versus a mother who is not capable of taking care of her own son. The mother was hidden in the initials of B.M. The child is a four-year-old boy with the initials of B.B. He was brought to the DCF for a shelter petition last 2006. It all started with the mother and child deciding to live alone away from the father who mistreats and abused his wife. In September 12 of 2006, she left her son in a neighbor’s house and promised that she would return soon. But she did not and only came back for her son the afternoon of the next day.

Because of this non-compliance according to a New York Visitation Lawyer she was evicted two days after and she even evaded possible confrontation with the WID. A history of violence in the home was traced and both parents had restraining orders. By September 18, the mother was allowed visitation that is supervised about two times in a week. But on the following month, reports say that she has already missed three appointed visits with which she gave three unreasonable excuses as well. First, she simply overslept. Second, she had to go to a particular doctor’s appointment. Third, she needed to do another follow up with her doctor.

At this point, the New York Custody Lawyer found out that it would be the father who would take custody of the child for a while. The mother was still allowed to visit the child but with proper supervision. The mother was tasked to do the following like attend parenting classes and go through an evaluation of substance abuse. She is also to go through complete psychological evaluation, individual counseling and even sign a consent along with attending violence for victims workshop classes.

If the mother would fail her ordered responsibilities, she would not be allowed of any kind of contact with the child. She must also be able to present herself to the court first clean of any substance abuse and after having negative results for her drug screening. The custody of the child to the father was also modified since the father was guilty of domestic violence still of the new wife. After sometime though, a witness emerged from the Child Net organization saying that the kid is doing well with his father and stepmother already. But as with the mother, she has not been able to comply to her requirements and hence she was not allowed completely to visit her child. She was still given the chance for sporadic visitation for the court believes that the child still has the need to see his own mother.

If you need some help with any kind of family oriented legal cases, you should start getting in touch with an ideal Suffolk County Family Lawyer so that you can be able to understand the entire process. The office of Stephen Bilkis and Associates offers great a strong team of legal professionals who can help you in giving justice to your rights and your loved ones.

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

A few days after the decision, Ms. Sullivan asked the court for clarification of the dependent claim eligibility of each parent. Before this could be determined, Ms. Sullivan died in a car accident. Elizabeth Sullivan, the baby’s maternal grandmother, filed a Motion to Intervene and for the Award of Reasonable Visitation to Grandparent and was asking for a decision granting her the right to get involved in the paternity suit filed by her daughter. This is limited to certain situations and one of them is the death of a parent or both parents. To answer this, the father filed a motion to dismiss.

The lower courts ruled that the grandmother cannot intervene in the paternity suit because her daughter is already deceased, and the determination will not make a different as to can file for a dependent exemption. The visitation right was also dismissed. This was appealed by grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts.

In their determination, the Supreme Court cited the case of Beagle vs. Beagle and Von Eiff. They said that the granting of visitation to grandparents is a violation to the privacy of the parent in rearing their child. Aside from the death of a parent or both parents, there should be an apparent reason to think the child’s best interest is to have the grandparent have visitation rights as he is too young. If there is an issue of the child being harmed, the court could also intervene in the decision of the parent in deciding what is best for the child. The Supreme Court says in this case, there is no need and no evidence to show harm.

A New York Order for Protection Lawyer is aware that a separation already affects a child’s familial stability and much more if a parent dies. The welfare of the child now needs support not only from the surviving parent but even from grandparents. The law supports this, and a good counsel will be able to present this well.

Whether you are a grandparent seeking visitation rights or a parent involved in a custody dispute, the law will have it covered. Stephen Bilkis and Associates have experienced legal counsel who will give you your options for the protection of your children’s rights and your rights for visitation or to prevent visitation as your decision as a parent. We have offices Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Manhattan in New York. We are in Suffolk County and Nassau County and in Westchester County in Long Island. We will provide you with legal assistance and make sure your children’s welfare is protected. For a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the first three year of Victoria’s life, she lived with Gerald, who treated her as his own child. Sometimes, she and her mother resided with other men. May was when Victoria was born, they lived with Gerald. October of the same year, Gerald moved to New York for business, and Carole and Victoria were in California. End of October, both Carole and Michael had tests done to check the paternity of Victoria and found the 98.07% probability she was Michael’s. January of the following year, Carole visited Michael. In March, she left and resided with Scott K. and in the same year with Gerald again, but by fall she was back with Scott.

November after the year Victoria was born, Michael filed a filiation action to get visitation rights and determine paternity because Carole was not allowing him access to Victoria. About six months after, Carole filed a motion for summary judgment. At this time, she had been with Gerald since March, which lasted until July. After, she was with Michael again and this time she asked her lawyers to withdraw the motion for summary judgment. For the next eight months, they lived together and April, before Victoria’s third birthday, Carole and Michael signed a stipulation that Michael was Victoria’s natural father. The month after, Carole left Michael and ordered her lawyers not to file the stipulation. She moved back with Gerald.
The same month that Carole and Victoria left, Michael filed a case seeking visitation rights.

The court asked a psychologist to look into Victoria, Gerald, Michael and Carole’s state of mind for them to determine if Michael should be granted visitation. The recommendation was yes, so Michael was granted limited visitation while the case is pending. According to a Gerald intervened and moved for a summary judgment saying there were no issues that should be determined in a trial for Victoria’s paternity. The court granted the motion, and it was also affirmed by the higher courts as the law says if a child is born to a married woman living with her husband who is not sterile or impotent, then the child is presumed theirs. This can only be contradicted by the husband or the wife. There can also be no custody or visitation issue as the court cannot say that Victoria has two fathers.

Sometimes, there are really cases that will seem like a movie and a child torn in between. Determining who the father is legally is something that law has provisions for. Determining the rights of people for visiting a child or deciding for a child the welfare of the child is still placed first.

Whether you have a paternity issue, custody battle, or need an order for protection, Stephen Bilkis and Associates have experienced legal counsel who can help. We have offices Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Manhattan in New York. We are in Suffolk County and Nassau County and in Westchester County in Long Island. In protecting your rights as a parent, we also see to it that your child’s welfare is not impaired. For a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-NY-NY-LAW.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Louisiana Visitation Issue" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A mother filed an appeal to dissolve her marriage from her husband. She asked the Court to approve her moving with their daughter, to Louisiana, according to a New York Family Lawyer. She asked the court for the father and her for shared parental responsibility. In her petition, she asked for the court to give reasonable visitation to the father. She did not ask for the father to be ordered to attend parenting classes, but the Trial Court erroneously filed an emergency order to grant the mother temporary primary residential custody. The court also allowed her to move the child to a different State.

The mother and child moved to Louisiana with the granting of the court order, because of this, the father filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction to prevent the removal of a child and or return of the child to jurisdiction. He filed another motion to rush the appeal against the temporary primary residential custody and order granting the moving of the child to another State. A Westchester County Visitation Lawyer said, the mother’s motion was granted without the court giving the father to present his side and be heard. Aside from this, there was a two-month delay in the evidentiary hearing. After the evidentiary hearing was when the Trial Court granted the petition of the mother and ordered the father to take a thirty-six-week parenting course. Only after he finishes will the parental responsibility issue be reviewed. The father appealed against the decision.

The court reviewed three issues in the case. The first was if the mother presented enough evidence for the Trial Court to give her sole parental responsibility. The Court of Appeals said she was able to. Determine that she was able to do so. The second was about the complete control given to the mother for the visitation. Generally, the court said that this was an error, but given the facts of the case, they said it was not improper.

The last issue the Court of Appeals addressed was the parenting course required that he attend. He said that mother did not ask for it, so he did not know that the court might impose that lengthy course. The court said, typically the court cannot go outside of what was petitioned, but in cases for visitation, the welfare of the child is the one the main priority. Having a parent attend a parenting course is available to judges to foster the best interest of a child. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case.

Each parent has a right to have a meaningful relationship with his or her child according to a New York Family Lawyer. There are instances that the court may limit visitation because of the situation, but they cannot deprive unless the child may be harmed or threatened. They can make parents attend parenting classes to make sure the best interest of the child is prioritized.

Divorce cases are emotionally difficult, particularly when there is a child in the cross fire. If you are involved in a divorce, or require an order for protection, or you have a custody or visitation issue, it is importan to consult with skilled legal counsel promptly. This will ensure that your rights, and the rights of your child are protected throughout the legal process.

Continue reading "Court Rules on Out of State Visitation Issues" »

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Child Visitation Matter" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Child Support Issue" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation" »

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Court Rules on Nonpayment of Alimony" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case was about a couple whose divorce was finalized in 2007. In their marriage, they had one child who was given to the father's custody. In the divorce judgment, a marital settlement was also included. Because of the big difference in the income of the mother and father, the bulk of the expenses for the child was assigned to the father. The mother was to cover for the medical and dental insurance of their child, said a New York Family Lawyer. The mother was given visitation of at least forty percent of the overnights. This is subject to certain conditions. The first was for the mother to have psychological evaluation, and she should attend an on-going psychological or psychiatric counseling. The second is to have mother's home inspected frequently for home and overnight visitation.

According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the father asked the court to modify the judgment. He asked this a year after the divorce. This was to have the mother pay child support because he claims to have suffered a serious injury, which lowered his income significantly. In his petition, he alleged that the child’s needs also increased, and the mother's financial status has improved. In response, the mother said she was the one entitled to receive child support after the time-sharing was adjusted. The mother filed a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing officer recommended that it should be granted and to have the father pay $182 for should support. The Circuit Court adapted the recommendation and denied the father's motion to vacate.

The case was submitted to the Court of Appeals for review. For a summary judgment to be allowed, the court says there should be no disputed issues of material fact and the party asking for it is entitled as a matter of law. In this case, the father did not meet the requirements. The decision was based on the assumption that a parent spends a substantial amount of time with the child. Meaning, the time spent is at least forty percent of the overnights per year. The parent's agreement was already such, and that cannot be disputed, said a New York Visitation Lawyer.

The issue is that the father had presented evidence showing mother as having very few overnight visitations with their child. The conditions of her house as require by the agreement was not being met. This he further supported by the inspection report done by a third party. The mother argued her exercising of her visitation rights infrequently is immaterial. A Nassau County Visitation Lawyer said the Court of Appeals disagrees. They said the entitlement of a party to the adjustment is not fixed. One of the reasons not to grant is if the parent shows the likelihood of not exercising the time-sharing schedule. They reversed the decision and remanded it for further determination.

Each parent has visitation rights with their child. The law is set up so that if the time spent with one is large enough, they share in the expenses. This is still subject to review because even if it is scheduled but the parent does not go then, there should be no expense to cover.

An experienced family lawyer understands that going through a divorce is a highly stressful experience, particularly when children are involved. It is important to ensure that your rights, and the rights of your child are protected throughout the legal process. It is important to speak to a skilled attorney at the earliest point in the process to ensure that the case runs smoothly, and you receive a favorable outcome. Whether you need to file for a divorce, require an order for protection, or have a visitation or custody dispute, contact our office for guidance and advice.

Continue reading "Court Changes Child Support Based on Visitation " »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading "Alabama Legislators Promoting Equal Parent Time" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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