Articles Posted in Bronx

Published on:

A New York Family Lawyer said in a condition of settlement incorporated but not merged into the decision of divorce, a couple agreed to waive their right to fix the support of their child under the standards act for some period, during which time the father, a licensed urologist who was attending law school, would make no payments to the mother for the support of their child. The condition further stated that the husband agrees to pay the wife the support of the child pursuant to the act based upon his earnings at the time. Subsequently, in an order, the father was directed to pay the child support to the mother in the amount of eight hundred eighteen dollars, twice per month, which was based upon the father’s salary that was one hundred twenty five thousand dollars per year as a first year associate in a law firm.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the mother then initiated a proceeding for an upward modification, alleging that the father was now employed as an urologist earning approximately three hundred fifty thousand dollars per year. But, upon dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the mother failed to state a reason for action for modification, the mother filed objections to the family court, but some of which were denied.

Subsequently, the mother filed an appeal from an order of the family court which denied her objections to so much of three orders of the same court, as denied her cross motion to limit the issues with regard’s the father’s income, granted the branch of the father’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for failure to state a reason for action, and dismissed the proceeding.

Published on:

A New York Family Lawyer said complainants initiated a paternity proceeding against a man. An infant had been born and after a denial by the man, preparation for a contested proceeding followed. However, both parties with their attorneys resolved the matter and executed a written agreement.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the main agreement, the man admitted paternity and committed himself to pay $3,500 for the complainant’s counsel fees and blood test expenses. The man also committed to pay the sum of $216.67 per month and to establish a trust fund for the child in the amount of $20,000.

Under the terms of the trust agreement, the interest from the amount was to be used by man to subsidize the monthly child support payments with the amount to be given over to the child when he attained twenty one years or, if the child did not survive, to revert to the man. But, if the man died during the child’s infancy, the complainant mother herself would succeed as trustee.

Published on:

A New York Family Lawyer said an objection to an order was filed with the court and a rebuttal to the objection was received from the county attorney.

The complainant objects to the order of the hearing examiner, arguing that the determination that the complainant does not have a need for support is not supported by the evidence in the record and is contrary to the prevailing law.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that subsequently, both parties provided the court with memoranda of law.

Published on:

A York Family Lawyer said this is a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act, Article 14, wherein the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County entered on 5 May 2006 which denied his objections to eight orders of the same court, seven of which was dated 1 December 2005 and one dated 24 April 2006, inter alia, denying his petition for a downward modification of child support and granting the mother attorney’s fees.

The court affirms the order with costs.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the father filed a petition in 1997 seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate denied the petition on the ground that the father had caused his own inability to pay child support.

Published on:

A New York Family Lawyer said that, on or about July 5, 2007, the Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter “DSS”) filed petitions against the respondent, seeking the removal of her two children. On the same date, the respondent filed petitions seeking the return of her sons pursuant to FCA § 1028. A hearing was held and on July 24, 2007 respondent’s return petition was denied and the children remained in the physical custody of DSS.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the respondent consented to a finding of neglect in the underlying neglect petition. The Order of Custody to DSS was vacated; a one year Order of Supervision was entered and the children were returned to the respondent. The terms of the Order indicated that the respondent was to cooperate with DSS and Preventive Services, and attend the PACT program. Thereafter, the respondent voluntarily placed the children in foster care, as she reported to be suffering from depression at that time. The children were placed in the home of a certified foster parent, where they continue to reside. The first subject child was three years old and the other was ten months old at the time that they were placed in the foster parent’s home.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the respondent gave birth to her third child, Emma P., on October 10, 2008. On February 9, 2009, DSS filed a neglect petition against the respondent, on behalf of this child, in Nassau County. On February 25, 2009 the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter “ACS”) additionally filed neglect petitions against the respondent in Queens County where the respondent had been living regarding the same child. The Queens County Court paroled the child to the non-respondent father, with supervision by ACS. Additionally, the Court issued a Temporary Order of Protection, which vacated the respondent from the home, prohibited the respondent from having any contact with the child if under the influence of drugs or alcohol and only allowed for agency supervised visits. Upon consultation with this Court, the case was transferred to Nassau County Family Court on or about April 2, 2009.

Published on:

A New York Family Lawyer said that, a petition has been filed for the appointment of a guardian of the person and property of an alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter known as “the person”). This Court is satisfied that the person was served with the order to show cause and petition by personal delivery at least fourteen days prior to the return date and that all other necessary interested persons required to be served under Mental Hygiene Law section 81.07 were timely served with the order to show cause and petition. Melissa Lucas, Esq., was appointed to serve as the court evaluator.

A New York Custody Lawyer said the hearing was held on October 25, 2011 and December 7, 2011. The person was not present at the hearing. It was determined that he would not be able to meaningfully participate in the proceedings even if they were conducted at his bedside because he is on a trachea tube and is non-responsive. Accordingly, his presence was waived. The person’s son, the person’s other son, the person’s companion, the person’s son-in-law, the person’s brother, the person’s daughter who is the petitioner herein, and the court evaluator testified at the hearing.

A Bronx Family Lawyer said that, the person is 73 years of age. The person presently resides at Bronx, New York. The person was admitted to the nursing home on or about December 21, 2010. The person suffered a stroke (his third) while he was in Puerto Rico on or about September 15, 2010. His daughter, the petitioner, moved him from a hospital in Puerto Rico to Bronx Lebanon Hospital. He was then discharged to the nursing home. The person is currently in a vegetative state and is generally non-responsive. He has a trachea tube extending from an incision in his neck to a machine next to his bed to help him breathe. He is completely dependent on nursing staff for all of his activities of daily living. He has substantial assets including real property and a business in Puerto Rico but is unable to manage his finances, pay his bills or continue to run his business. As a result, the person is in need of someone to provide for his personal needs and property management. The guardianship is required for an indefinite duration.

Published on:

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, she appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, as denied her cross motion, inter alia, to “dismiss” defendant’s motion for custody of the infant issue of the marriage upon the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the parties, who had resided with their two minor children in Nassau County, were divorced by a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The judgment incorporated an earlier separation agreement, which was to survive the judgment. The agreement provided, inter alia, that plaintiff would have “principal custody” of the two children and defendant would have certain visitation rights. The agreement also provided that each party could live wherever he or she chose.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that defendant moved for custody of the children and other relief at Special Term early in 1979, alleging that plaintiff had interfered with his visitation rights. The court found that plaintiff had interfered with defendant’s rights by removing the children to California and Florida and that she had decided, without consulting defendant, to move to California permanently with the children.

Published on:

Pursuant to the Family Court Act § 651(b) and Domestic Relations Law § 72, two petitions are now before the court.

A New York Family Lawyer said the first petition filed on 5 December 2008 by A (birth father) seeks custody of and/or visitation with the child B (D.O.B. 04/01/2004).

The second petition filed on 5 December 2008 by C, mother of B, seeks custody of and/or visitation with the child, C.

Published on:

The law guardian, on behalf of the subject child, moves to vacate a judgment, terminating the natural mother’s parental rights. The sole basis for the law guardian’s motion is that the subject child, now fourteen years of age, does not wish to be adopted by his maternal aunt with whom he has lived since the age of seven, in light of his affection for his mother. Initially, the law guardian cited no statutory basis for her motion.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the petitioner argues further that none of the statutory bases established by CPLR 5015 applies in this case. Petitioner contends that the only conceivable statutory ground for setting aside the judgment would be the existence of newly discovered evidence, which had it been introduced at trial, would probably have produced a different result. Petitioner further contends that the child’s change of mind regarding adoption is not evidence which would probably have produced a different result had it been introduced at the dispositional hearing on the petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The law guardian contends that the child’s change of mind is evidence of the sort which requires a new dispositional hearing, if not a dismissal of the termination petition.

Procedurally, a New York Child Custody Lawyer said the court concludes that Petitioner’s contention that the proceeding is governed by CPLR 5015, is correct. Although the law guardian contends that this court has inherent authority, under the doctrine of parens patriae, to set aside the previous judgment in the best interest of the subject child, the court’s powers are strictly defined and delimited by statute. Nothing in the Family Court Act or the Social Services Law authorizes the court to vacate a judgment committing custody and guardianship to a petitioning agency, once the judgment is entered. Unlike article 10 of the Family Court Act, which contains specific statutory authority to set aside, modify or to vacate any order issued in the course of a proceeding under that article, no such authority is conferred by any provision of Family Court Act article 6, which governs proceedings to terminate parental rights for permanent neglect of the subject child.

Published on:

A New York Family Lawyer said that, petitioner objects to the order which terminated the order of child support of December 12, 1988. The objections are sustained and the order terminating the December 12, 1988 order of child support is vacated and the order of child support is continued. The child was born out-of-wedlock on September 17, 1987 and shortly thereafter began to receive support from the petitioner/Commissioner of Social Services. On October 13, 1988, the Commissioner commenced a proceeding to declare the respondent the child’s father and to collect child support from him. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the third paragraph of the Commissioner’s petition alleges that she had received an assignment from the child’s mother and that the child is or is likely to become a public charge. The petition prayed for child support.

A New York Bronx Lawyer said that, on September 12, 1988 Hearing Examiner entered both an order of filiation and an order of child support, both on the father’s consent. On February 28, 1990, a child protective proceeding pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act was commenced against the child’s mother resulting in the May 29, 1990 order placing the child in foster care. It would appear that the father was neither a respondent nor an intervenor in that proceeding.

A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, on February 28, 1991 the father moved to terminate his order of child support effective May 29, 1990 and for a refund of all child support paid to the Commissioner from that date. The essence of the father’s argument in support of his motion is that since the Commissioner was acting, at least in part, as the assignor of the custodial mother when the original order of support was entered, it should be vacated because the Commissioner now has custody of the child. There is no dispute that the Commissioner has continued to support the child during the entire time in issue.

Contact Information