Published on:

Court Hears Child Custody Dispute

The subject children are two minor boys, born November 26, 2001, and, born August 1, 2005. After the birth of the first child, the mother moved, with him, to Florida. Thereafter, by stipulation dated October 27, 2003, the parties agreed to joint legal and residential child custody until the first born child reached school age, at which point residential custody would revert to the mother on condition that she moved back to New York. Before the first born child reached school age, the parties reconciled, and resided together in Suffolk County, where the second child was born.

A New York Family Lawyer said that on April 2007, a Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the mother took both children from Centereach in Suffolk County to live with her mother in the Bronx, and filed petitions for sole child custody. The father filed cross petitions for sole child custody. In May 2007, an order of protection was entered upon consent, directing the father to stay away from the mother, her home, and her place of employment, except for visitation purposes. The parties agreed that the father would have visitation on alternate weekends. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted with respect to custody. It is clear from the evidence adduced at the hearing that both parties are loving parents and neither party is unfit. However, the record discloses certain troublesome facts about each of the parties. It is apparent that the relationship between the parties was a stormy one, and the father acknowledged that “everybody yells.”

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, the Family Court directed the mother to register the first born child in first grade in the Middle Country School District in Suffolk County, where he had attended kindergarten. However, when the mother changed her residence and place of employment to Queens, she enrolled the first borne child in school there, contrary to the direct order of the Family Court. At the custody hearing, the father’s neighbor testified that he had heard the father cursing, and observed visitors and noisy parties at the father’s house “at all hours of the night.” In August 2007 he observed police activity at the father’s house, and spoke to the police detectives. The father acknowledged that his house, owned by him and the mother jointly, was in foreclosure. Further, the father had a criminal record consisting of two felony convictions and one misdemeanor conviction from the 1990s. At the conclusion of the hearing, the children’s attorney noted that this was a difficult case since both parties were “clearly flawed,” but also had “strengths and good points.” However, she recommended that the children remain with the mother in the interest of stability, since the mother had had sole custody of them for seven months during the pendency of the proceedings, and the father’s house was in foreclosure.

In an order appealed from, the Queens Family Lawyer said that the father was awarded custody of the children, with “substantial visitation” to the mother. By decision and order on motion dated January 14, 2008, this Court stayed enforcement of the order appealed from and continued residential custody with the mother pending hearing and determination of the instant appeal. Thereafter, in an order dated January 24, 2008, the Family Court awarded the father temporary visitation, for three weekends per month, and directed that “upon completion of the appeal, the parties may seek modifications to this Order as appropriate.”

A Queens Custody Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the Court erred in giving the custody of the subject children to their father.

The Court reversed the order dated December 21, 2007, on the ground that it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record, keeping in mind that the paramount concern in this matter is the best interests of the children.

The Court notes that the Family Court found it significant that the mother came to court dressed in “hospital clothing, as if she were a nurse or other medical professional, but in fact works as a receptionist.” The mother worked as an “assistant” in a medical office. The nature of her work attire was not relevant to her credibility. Further, the Family Court found it significant that the mother was married to another man “for the entire course of the parties’ relationship” and, based upon these facts, found her testimony “less than credible.” However, the father had similar issues, such as a third child by a previous relationship with a woman he never married, and a fourth child from yet another relationship. Further, the father had a criminal record involving serious crimes.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the interests of the children would best be served by preserving the status quo, and leaving the children in the custody of their mother, who has served as their primary caretaker throughout their lives. The Court further notes that the conclusion of the Family Court that the mother is willing to “cut” the father out of the lives of the children is not supported by the record. Her move from the Bronx to Queens during the pendency of the proceedings did not impose obstacles to visitation, which was ongoing. The Court deemed it appropriate that the father’s liberal visitation continue.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, before a different Judge. In awarding permanent visitation, the Family Court may continue the visitation arrangement set by order of the Family Court, with any appropriate modifications.

In every child custody proceedings, the court’s paramount concern is the best interest of the child. There is a need for the representation of a Bronx Child Custody Attorney and Bronx Child Support Attorney in order to help you with the custody of your child. Bronx Family Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates will stand by you and defend your rights as the fit parent for the child’s custody.

Contact Information