Articles Posted in Child Support

Published on:

by

This court has before it objections to the decision and order of Hearing Examiner Miklitsch dated April 4, 1994. The petitioner, represented by the County Attorney of Rockland County, objects to the dismissal of her petition brought under Article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law which sought enforcement of a Kings County Family Court order of support and collection of arrears.

On January 24, 1994 the petitioner, Marsha Dow, filed with this court a petition under Article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law of the State of New York (Uniform Support of Dependents Law [USDL]. Petitioner was a resident of Queens County, New York. Consequently, the clerk of the Queens County Family Court forwarded the petition, along with a certificate signed by a judge of that county, to the Rockland County Family Court wherein the respondent resides. On March 8, 1994 the matter appeared on the calendar of the hearing examiner of this court. Petitioner was represented by the office of the Rockland County Attorney and the respondent was represented by private counsel. The hearing examiner dismissed the petition on that date and a formal order was signed on April 4, 1994. In said order, the hearing examiner stated as the reason for the dismissal, a New York order is not a foreign order under statute. The petitioner has objected to this determination. Respondent has not interposed a rebuttal.

The issue to be decided is whether a petitioner who is a resident or domiciliary of one county of the State of New York can maintain a proceeding under Article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law to enforce the terms of a New York State order of child support against a respondent who is a resident or domiciliary of another county of the State of New York.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

 

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, as denied his objections to stated portions of an order of the same court which, after a hearing, inter alia, fixed the father’s child support arrears in the sum of $20,046.76 and awarded the mother counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.

“In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, deference should be given to the credibility determinations of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses”.

Continue reading

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

 

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, which denied her objections to an order of the same court, granting the father’s petition to suspend his child support obligation and to adjust his child support arrears, and to an order of the same court, denying, as academic, her petition to find the father in violation of his child support obligation and for an award of child support arrears.

In August 1993 the parties entered into an agreement which provided, inter alia, that the father would pay the mother specified child support until their two children were emancipated, as that term was defined therein. Pursuant to the agreement, emancipation was triggered, in relevant part, upon the child’s residence away from the mother’s residence, “not including attendance at college.” The parties were divorced, and the agreement was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

 

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County, which denied his objection to so much of an order of the same court, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation, as set forth in a prior order of child support, and granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was to adjudicate him in willful violation of the prior order of child support, and (2) an order of the same court, which committed him to the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections for a term of imprisonment of eight consecutive weekends with the opportunity to purge his contempt by payment of the sum of $5,000 toward his arrears.

“A party seeking downward modification of a support obligation has the burden of showing a change in circumstances and that he used his best efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience”. “In determining a change of circumstances, a court need not rely upon the party’s account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated earning potential”. However, “[w]hile a support magistrate is afforded considerable discretion in determining whether to impute income to a parent, a determination to impute income will be rejected where the amount imputed was not supported by the record, or the imputation was an improvident exercise of discretion”.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a proceeding to determine child custody pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in which the mother cross-petitioned for modification of an order of the Family Court, Bronx County, dated May 2, 1986, granting the father custody of the parties’ daughter, the father appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered August 4, 1989, which, after a hearing, granted permanent custody of the parties’ two children to the mother.

A New York Divorce Lawyer said that, by petition dated April 12, 1988, the appellant, a resident of Nassau County, requested legal custody of his son, who was born in 1987. In his petition, he asserted that he had been left with physical custody of his son since March 5, 1988, when the respondent mother “moved to the Bronx by herself”. However, the evidence adduced at the subsequent hearing reveals that the mother took her son with her when she left.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, in her cross petition dated March 29, 1988, the mother confirmed that until March 1988 she resided with the appellant along with their son and their daughter, who was born in 1982. She alleged that she left the appellant’s residence in March and that he refused to allow her to take her daughter with her. She requested modification of a prior order of the Family Court, Bronx County, dated May 2, 1986, pursuant to which custody of the daughter had been awarded to the appellant, and further requested permanent custody of the daughter. On July 27, 1988, the Family Court, Nassau County, granted temporary custody of Christopher to the mother. The daughter remained in the custody of the appellant. After a hearing, the Family Court, in the order appealed from, awarded permanent custody of both children to the mother.

Published on:

by

It was on August 11, 1998, when a child was found abandoned by police officers in a bedroom of the home of respondent, (the child’s mother). The nine-year-old child had been bound with electrical cords, hooded with a pillowcase tied around his neck, and gagged with a sock stuffed in his mouth and secured by electrical tape wrapped around his face. A New York Family Lawyer said the child’s arms and legs had been tied so that he was forced to remain standing in a cruciform position; he was otherwise naked, and loud music was left playing in the room. The door to the room was taped shut. When discovered, the child had been tied up since August 7, 1998; he was found to have sustained several old and healing cuts and bruises, whip marks, and numerous scars and lacerations.

The Department of Social Services (hereinafter Department) petitioned against respondents, for a determination that the children are abused children. During the trial, the court issued a Fact-Finding Order and an accompanying decision on July 7, 1999. The court determined the facts recounted above and found that petitioner had adequately proven that the child was the victim of abuse perpetuated by respondent caretakers.

As defined by Family Court Act section 1012 (e) (i) and (ii). The said abuse comprised at least four occasions when the child was tied up and numerous occasions when he was whipped and beaten. The court further concluded that petitioner also met the higher burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent repeatedly and severely abused the child. Therefore, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said in addition to the finding of abuse as to both respondents, the court found based upon clear and convincing evidence that the said child was the victim of severe and repeated abuse inflicted by respondent. Hence, an Order of Protection was issued by the court.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

A man and a woman fell in love in 1976. They moved in together for five years. And their relationship produced a daughter. During this time, the couple used and dealt drugs. Both of them were apprehended and charged with possession of controlled substances. A New York Family Lawyer said the woman pleaded guilty and was put on probation. Since that time, she has been drug-free.

Her husband was imprisoned but was later released on parole. While on parole, he became a fugitive. He left New York and could not be located. He called his wife after a few months and asked her to leave New York and travel to Chicago, Illinois to join him there. The wife refused because it would be breaking the conditions of her probation and it would endanger the life of her daughter. From that time the woman had not had any contact with her husband.

While they were together, the husband supported their child intermittently because his work as a painter was intermittent. When her husband became a fugitive the support ended. The woman was forced to get a job and move in with her mother who took care of her baby while she was away at work.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The petitioner and appellant of this case is Reynaldo M. The respondent in the case is Violet F. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This is a case of appeal. A New York Family Lawyer said the appellant, Reynaldo M. is appealing an order that was made in the Family Court of Bronx County by the Referee Annette Louise Guarino. The original order was made on or around the 15th of April in 1010 and granted the petitioner father contact with his child in the form of letters, mail, and gifts and the child was free to initiate telephone contact with the father if she desired.

Case Discussion

When reviewing the record of the case it is found that the lawyer of the father consented to the order and there is no appeal that can be entered on behalf of a consenting party. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the lawyer was familiar with the situation and had represented the father on a number of occasions before this case.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

This matter deals with a support proceeding under article 4 of the Family Court Act. The petitioner and respondent in the case is Dorothy Silvestris. The respondent and appellant in the case is Frank Silvestris. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and First Department. The appeal in this case deals with a court order that directs the appellant to pay $30 a week for support of his eleven year old daughter.

Case Background

The proceeding was started in the Family Court of Greene County where the petitioner and the daughter live. The appellant, who is the father of the child lives in Bronx County. The matter was transferred to the Family Court of Bronx County pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law.

Continue reading

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This is a case that involves Hector G. as the petitioner versus Josefina P. as the respondent and Josefina P. as the petitioner against Hector G. as the respondent. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Bronx County.

Case Questions

A New York Family Lawyer said this particular case raises two different questions in regard to the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. The father in this case argues that title three of the act requires that the court enforce the custody order that was made by the court in the Dominican Republic. The mother contends that this court may assume the jurisdiction over the parental custody case and modify or replace the order that was made in the Dominican Republic.

Continue reading

Contact Information