A New York Family Lawyer said this is an action for divorce where plaintiff wife has made applications for orders: directing defendant husband to vacate the marital home; to provide support and maintenance for her and the issue of the marriage; and to restrain him from removing furnishings, furniture and personal property from the residence.
A New York Custody Lawyer said that on 30 April 1971, when the motions were originally submitted, the court discovered that an application which had been made to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for an order of protection was being sent to the Family Court, Nassau County, for determination. Upon inquiring with the Nassau Family Court, that information was confirmed. Apparently, since the motions concerned ‘relief associated with the Family Court proceeding’, the Suffolk Family Court referred them to the Nassau Family Court for hearing and determination. However, the applications were referred back to them.
On 9 June 1971, the Suffolk Family Court returned the matters to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, the court at bar, for determination.
Here, referral of the motions was not made without authority nor was it intended to enlarge the Family Court’s jurisdiction. That Court has original jurisdiction over support proceedings and the applications for support and custody in matrimonial actions referred to it.
A Long Island Family Lawyer said it is provided for under the Family Court Act, a husband is chargeable with the support of his wife and a father is obligated to support his children. This statute authorized the Family Court to require the father to provide for the support of his wife and children as it might determine; it may make an allowance for counsel fees in proceedings seeking support; and, in actions for divorce, separation or annulment, the Supreme Court, on its own motion, may refer to the Family Court applications for temporary support or temporary or permanent custody.
Under the rules, in orders of protection, the Family Court may provide not only that a person stay away from the home, spouse or child, it may also permit a parent to visit the child and require proper attention to the care of the home; and, it has jurisdiction over any proceeding concerning acts which would constitute disorderly conduct, etc., between spouses or between parent and child.
At bar, when the motions were referred to the Family Court, there was ample authority for that Court to act. If the Family Court refused to decide these issues because they would touch upon matters to be heard in the matrimonial actions, the sections cited would have failed to serve the Legislature’s purpose. As stated, all matters touching on family relationships properly belong in the Family Court so that divided jurisdiction would be avoided.
A Long Island Child Custody Lawyer said that on plaintiff’s application for her exclusive possession of the marital home and restraining the defendant from removing property therefrom:
An order was issued that respondent stay away from petitioner, plaintiff wife, at all times until further notice. This raised some question as to how defendant, the respondent husband in the Family Court, would obtain his files and visit with his children. Nevertheless, the Family Court order must be observed. Since the Family Court order in effect gave the wife exclusive possession of the marital home, her request for relief in that regard was denied.
According to the defendant husband, as stated in his affidavit, he has been paying the plaintiff wife at the rate of $50 to $60 per week for the support of herself and the children though plaintiff wife averred that the payments were more like $10 to $60; and, plaintiff wife’s income and cash assets exceed his.
Based upon the circumstances and the evidence presented, on condition that the husband continue to support his wife and sons by paying her no less than $50 per week and the carrying charges on the marital residence, including the mortgage payments of interest, amortization, taxes, and the fuel and utility bills except for telephone service, plaintiff wife’s request for temporary alimony and support was denied. The husband’s payments were ordered to be regularly by Friday of each week either by check or money order to be mailed to plaintiff wife at the marital home. Indeed, the husband has all the rights to visit his sons but away from the marital residence pursuant to the Family Court order to remain away from the petitioner, plaintiff wife. Hence, it was ordered that on every occasion for visitation, the boys must be delivered to defendant husband either outside the marital home or at his place of abode, unless the parties agree on the provisions for visitation which is most desirable; otherwise, each of them must submit a memorandum of their wishes in the matter and the Court must fix the same.
Suffolk County Child Support Lawyers and Suffolk County Child Custody Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates will gladly extend their legal services to those who have queries regarding issues similar to the ones mentioned above. To contact us, please feel free to dial our toll free number or visit our firm.