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.

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" »

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" »