Custody

Published on: September 10, 2012

Father Requests Modification of Child Support

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were divorced pursuant to a judgment of divorce which was granted upon defendant’s (father) default. The Court with respect to the child custody and child support, ordered that plaintiff (mother) shall have custody of the child of marriage and that the father shall pay the Mother as and for the support of the parties’ child the sum of Two Hundred Ten dollars ($ 210.00) per week for child support, on Friday of each week thereafter, which shall be paid to through the Support Collection Unit for Kings County located at NYS Child Support Processing Center.

A New York Family Lawyer said the father, in his affidavit state, that after the divorce, their child resided with the maternal grandmother and other maternal relatives in Brooklyn. Thereafter, without his consent and Court approval, mother removed the child from the State of New York to Ontario, Canada. Father attempted to locate the child in Canada but the same was unsuccessful, so he filed a petition for visitation with the Kings County Family Court, but was unable to effectuate service of summons that resulted to the dismissal of the petition.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said father’s counsel managed to acquire the name and address of the child’s school in Ontario, by securing said information from the child’s former school in Brooklyn. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that father attempted to contact the school in order to gain access to the child, but to no avail because the school refused to give information about the mother and his child.

Published on: September 9, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The mother and the father, who were never married, had one child together who was born in New York. Two months after the child’s birth, the mother and the child resided in New York, while the father resided in Florida, the mother filed petitions in New York seeking an order of filiation and an order of child support, which relief was granted.

A New York Family Lawyer said that according to the father, the mother moved to Florida, and resided there continuously, at which time the father filed a petition in Florida seeking visitation. The Florida proceeding was dismissed, however, based upon the Florida court’s erroneous conclusion that the prior New York filiations proceeding deprived the Florida court of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The father and the mother thereafter filed petitions in New York, where the mother and child were then residing, seeking, respectively, visitation and custody, but neither party informed the New York Court, as required, of the proceedings held in Florida.

Thereafter, a final order granting child custody to the mother and visitation to the father was entered upon the consent of the parties. A New York Custody Lawyer said the mother and the father subsequently filed several petitions in New York, to modify the final order of child custody and visitation, and the father also sought an order transferring jurisdiction of the matter to Florida.

Published on: September 7, 2012

Court Decides Petition for Relocation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Petitioner and respondent are the natural parents of a 7-year old child, born on 11 October 2002, who has lived continuously with the mother. The parties were never married and the mother is currently married to another. The mother also has a 1-year old daughter, born on 14 December 2008.

A New York Family Lawyer said the mother and father lived together for approximately three to four years before he left the household when the child was approximately three years old.

Published on: September 6, 2012

Court Examines Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

When the parties entered into their divorce settlement, the petitioner, the respondent and the child resided in Clinton County, New York. Petitioner has continued to reside in New York since the parties separated. Respondent relocated to the State of Connecticut approximately eight years ago. A New York Family Lawyer said that after the relocation, the parties arranged informally for the petitioner to visit with the child for an extended period in New York over the summer and during some of the child’s spring, winter Christmas school vacations. In July of 2008, respondent informed petitioner that if he wanted to exercise any visitation with the subject child he would have to come to Connecticut. The only explanation respondent gave petitioner for her new position was that the subject child has an attitude when she comes home and that petitioner and his family are a bad influence.

Petitioner filed a Petition seeking the modification of the parties’ New York State Judgment of Divorce dated February 25, 1999, regarding petitioner’s visitation with the parties’ child. The respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking the dismissal of petitioner’s petition arguing that the State of New York (where the petitioner resides) lacks exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody proceedings concerning this child. In the alternative, respondent requests that this Court decline jurisdiction in favor of Connecticut (where she and the child reside).

Respondent alleged that in the eight years that he and the child have resided in Connecticut, petitioner’s visitation has been sporadic, averaging approximately three weeks in the summer with an additional week during the year over the last three years. In at least two of the years since the child moved to Connecticut, the visitation has been a total of less than one week. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the overwhelming evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships is in the State of Connecticut and that it would be very inconvenient for the child and respondent to litigate the matter in New York.

Published on: September 4, 2012

Court Discusses Social Services Law

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

The subject child was born on 30 October 2000 and was placed in the care and custody of the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) in February 2002 as a result of neglect allegations against her mother, the appellant (hereinafter the mother). Sometime in June 2002, the mother also gave birth to a son who is not the subject of this proceeding but was also placed in a separate foster care home soon after his birth.

A New York Family Lawyer said after the commencement of the aforesaid neglect proceeding, ACS placed the subject child with New Alternatives for Children, Inc. (hereinafter NAC), a New York-authorized foster care agency. NAC placed the child in the non-kinship foster home of a foster mother (hereinafter the foster mother).

Published on: September 1, 2012

Court Rules on Petition to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case where the court granted defendant mother’s motion for relocation to North Carolina with her ten year old daughter alleging that the circumstances have changed.

Because her parents’ marriage had failed even before she was conceived, the subject child has been raised by her mother since birth. The defendant is and has always been a good and devoted mother to the child.

A New York Family Lawyer said the child’s mother had struggled to make ends meet in New York, taking on as many as three jobs at once while attempting to make a home for her child. For most of her life in New York, the child lived in a home consisted of a shared room with her mother in a house owned and occupied by another family. Due to the damage to the house, mother and child were forced to move into a home with the child’s maternal aunt where living conditions were cramped and crowded.

Published on: August 28, 2012

Non-biological Father Seeks Custody

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the biological mother of the subject child, a six-year-old boy conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003. Respondent and petitioner met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in November 2003, the month before the child’s birth. Respondent repeatedly refused petitioner’s requests to become the child’s second parent by means of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said after the relationship between the petitioner and respondent soured and they separated, respondent allowed petitioner to have supervised visits with the child each week on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. In the spring of 2008, however, respondent began scaling back the visits. By early May 2008, she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the child.

Petitioner brought the proceeding against the respondent in Supreme Court by order to show cause. She sought joint legal and physical custody of the child, restoration of access and decision making authority with respect to his upbringing, and appointment of an attorney for the child.

At the hearing, the petitioner acknowledged the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Matter of Alison D., which held that only a child’s biological or adoptive parent has standing to seek visitation against the wishes of a fit custodial parent, but contended that another landmark case, which endorsed a nonbiological or nonadoptive parent’s right to invoke equitable estoppel to secure visitation or custody notwithstanding Alison D.

Published on: August 26, 2012

Mother Seeks to Relocate Child

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal involves a custodial action with the request of the mother to relocate her child with her. The parties were married but separated about a year and a half. Consequently, they filed a divorce and it was granted. The provision settling the case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. Moreover, the father had a visitation rights every week from Monday at 8:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. The provision allowed relocation within 25-miles from the father’s house in Bronx.

Based on records, the father had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. At the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.

After the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. Consequently, a New York Family Lawyer said she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. She moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. She stated that she was trying to mirror her own childhood and further stated that she had a wonderful suburban upbringing. The mother’s relationship in Connecticut ended when her boyfriend returned to his country. The mother returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Father Brings an Order to Show Cause Regarding Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff father and defendant mother were married in West Point, NewYork. Five years later, they had a daughter. Six months after the child’s birth, the parties separated. The father commenced an action for divorce in NewYork County, where he had moved after the separation.

The NewYork Supreme Court granted a judgment of divorce, incorporating by reference a comprehensive settlement agreement, the terms of which had been negotiated by mother and father in open court, and which survived the judgment. When the judgment was granted, mother and child were living in Las Vegas, Nevada, where they had moved. A New York Family Lawyer said under the settlement agreement, mother had sole legal custody of the child. Father had visitation rights in accordance with a detailed schedule. The settlement agreement provided that “it is expressly understood and agreed that so long as one of the parties herein is a resident of the State of NewYork, the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork shall retain personal jurisdiction of the parties, of the child, and of the case, for all purposes.”

Subsequently, the mother and child moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Later that year, in November, father moved for sole the child’s custody in NewYork, claiming that the mother’s relocations were intended to deprive him from having contact with his daughter. Mother responded by denying father’s allegations, and stating in effect that if the court intended to deny the motion, it should exercise jurisdiction, but if the court was inclined to grant the motion, she should be given an opportunity to file a cross motion seeking to dismiss the action because NewYork was an inconvenient forum.

Published on: August 20, 2012

Wife Moves Florida has Emergency Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple commenced an action for divorce and for child custody of their minor child. At the time of the action was initiated, the couple were living apart for several months. The wife instituted the action in Florida. She filed and received an ex-parte injunction enjoining either party from removing the child from the state of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. A New York Family Lawyer said the wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Florida. Her petition in Florida has been revised to include the claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Afterwards, the court conducted a joint hearing to New York state domestic relations law. The wife was present at the courthouse in Florida with her counsel and the husband simultaneously appeared in Kings County where both parties were also represented by New York counsel. At the hearing both counsel conceded that New York was the home state of the infant based upon the fact that the child has not resided in Florida for six (6) months prior to the commencement of the action. The husband has persistently argued that the issues of custody and visitation should be argued at New York Court. Conversely, the wife maintained that New York is an inconvenient forum.

The wife predicates her claim of inconvenient forum from the issue that her husband had a history of domestic violence, he has exercised power over her and that the husband has refused to provide adequate support for the wife and the child, that there was an agreement for the wife to live with her parents in Florida and a concession that the issue of the child would be heard in Florida and same was confirmed in an e-mail from the husband.