Divorce

Published on: February 14, 2012

Doodling On Your Desk Calls for Legal Intervention

by Stephen Bilkis

One little girl, doodling on her desk as many children are, found herself in a heap of trouble. She was a good student, rarely absent and was merely leaving her mark with an erasable marker on her desk. Apparently she was waiting on the teacher to hand out an assignment and boredom led her to leave a message on her desk. She figured she would be forced to clean up the marking on her desk but never dreamed she was going to find herself in jail for such a minor offense.

Arresting youngsters for minor infractions seems to be the norm in Queens as another 13-year-old was arrested for writing “Okay” on her desk. And, a 5-year-old was sent to a psych ward after throwing a temper tantrum, as five-year-olds seem to do on occasion. And now the various schools will answer to a court. The girl doodling while waiting on an assignment has been throwing up and is obviously distressed by the situation. She is still suspended from school and was given eight hours of community service, a book report and an essay on what she learned from the experience, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

This is one situation in a series of small infractions where children are being forced into realization in what seems like a bit of over-kill. And, her family will most likely seek counsel from a family lawyer or one specializing in cases where someone has suffered from what is seemingly an extremely minor and senseless use of the legal system.

Published on: February 13, 2012

Wrongful Arrest Suit Gets $1.8 Million Settlement

by Stephen Bilkis

A man who was wrongly accused of rape in 2008 is finally seeing justice being served. The initial case said the man raped his autistic daughter, who also happens to be mute and low-functioning, and the mother did nothing. The case was brought out when a teacher aide helped the girl type, even though she cannot speak or function above a two-year old level, said a New York Family Lawyer.

There was a physical examination, which showed there was no evidence of abuse. However, the man sat in jail for 80 days and his wife, the mother of the child, was also facing charges of abuse from the statement the teacher aide typed, according to a New York Custody Lawyer. The teacher aide has not faced any charges and was not named in the lawsuit against the township that handled the arrest. More lawsuits may be pending in the civil courts.

The case was dropped in March of 2008 because there was a lack of any evidence to prosecute the father or the mother involved. They had to go through a process and have their children removed from Foster Care. They also had lawyer expenses and court costs to cover. The $1.8 million dollar settlement will cover some of those expenses. Even though the family won the case, the township police department where they live maintains they did nothing wrong. They were simply following procedure from the report of an abused child.

Published on: February 11, 2012

Seeking advice from family planning lawyers is essential in understanding where you stand in your state’s federal estate tax laws

by Stephen Bilkis

Many people tend to overlook the likelihood of being hit with certain taxes because they aren’t considered “rich.” But according to a New York Family Lawyer, many upper middle-class families could be hit with an unplanned tax rate as high as 35%.

Currently the law provides an exemption for estate taxes of up to $5 million for those who die in 2011 and 2012. What many families are unaware of is that this amount can easily be exceeded when you take life insurance coverage, a valuable home, healthy retirement balances and other assets into account.

“Don’t forget to count any private business ownership interests such as shares in a family corporation or partnership,” explained a New York Custody Lawyer.

Published on: February 11, 2012

How the new estate planning laws have changed

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Family Lawyer, President Obama signed an estate tax overhaul last December. This new law will allow certain upper class couples, who are on their first marriage, to leave their possessions in such a way that will greatly reduce or eliminate taxes.

Under the new law, you are allowed to leave your spouse an unlimited amount with no tax. There are a couple of changes in this new law. First, your lifetime tax exemption is now raised to $5 million from $3.5 million. A widowed spouse can also now transfer any unused amount from their spouse to their selves. So now a total of $10 million could be left tax exempt.

This new law is not retroactive. If your spouse died before 2011 then you can’t claim the new changes. The first spouse to die has to file an estate tax return in order to claim this benefit even if no tax is due. The widowed spouse needs to file this return even if the dollar amount left seems to be low. Since this new law keeps the exemption from skipping a generation, a very rich person is forced to use the exemption to avoid tax for their grandchildren.

Published on: February 10, 2012

President Obama calls the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

President Obama recently proclaimed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which basically prohibits the recognition of same sex marriages, unconstitutional, and ordered the Justice Department to discontinue any defense of the act, explained a New York Family Lawyer

Supporters of same sex marriages were elated by this decision, but republicans questioned his political motive, because the President opposes same-sex marriage, has recently pushed to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell law”(bars military from letting gays serve), and had done just the opposite his first two years in office.

Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr. explained the decision in a letter to Congress. His letter basically said the administration would no longer defend the law despite the fact that they had defended it for the past two years.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Estate Planning Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

The estate tax question that loomed in previous years was finally settled at the very end of the year by Congress. The estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping tax (GST) were all given top rates of 35 percent with a $5 million lifetime individual exemption.

These exemptions for estate and gift taxes are even transferable between spouses, a New York Family Lawyer has learned. Should one spouse pass away, the executor of the estate can transfer any unused portion of this $5 million individual exemption to the surviving spouse.

As the law now stands, this law will only stand through 2012, unless something changes. Matters may be entirely different in 2013. Those who know the laws of estate planning are advising clients to take advantage of this window of opportunity.

Published on: February 9, 2012

ICE Arrests Family for Providing Fake Marriages for Visas

by Stephen Bilkis

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested a man, his wife, and their daughter, under suspicion of visa fraud, sources have confirmed to a New York Family Lawyer.

ICE officials suspect the Yorba Linda, CA, family of arranging fraudulent marriages, filing fraudulent marriage petitions, and filing fraudulent work visa petitions.

The investigation that began in 2009 as a result of officers of the Fraud Detection and National Security Division of USCIS began noticing similarities between more than 20 visa petitions they traced back to the company the family ran. Many of the documents that were used contained the same marriage and divorce certificates, witnesses, and even the same spouses.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on Child Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

It is very common for parties who are fighting over the custody of their children to have visitation agreements that state the exact time and place of exchange of custody from one parent to another, if and when the primary custodial role is awarded to one of the parents. As explained by a New York Family Lawyer, a schedule for standard visitation typically includes alternating weekend visits of the non-custodial parent, extended summer visits and alternating holidays. Most of the time, it will depend on the parties’ agreement. In this case, when Ray Russenberger’s and Cynthia Russenberger’s (now Steltenkamp) marriage was finally dissolved, the Mother was selected as the primary custodian but must adhere to “liberal” visitation rights by the Father to his children. Moreover, the agreement included that the parents still have the full rights and responsibilities in bringing up their children and must decide with each other concerning their children’s interests. Also no written stipulation demanded that they don’t leave Pensacola or prohibited going to any other location.

Immediately after the divorce proceedings, when the visitation rights were exercised by the Father, he found it difficult to stop by and see his children because there was no specific schedule specified on the provisions as to when and where he would visit his children. So on February 4th, the Father filed a move for a final judgment, stating the problems he is dealing with visitation and had asked the judge to enforce a visitation schedule so he could easily see his five children. The next day, he was advised by his legal counsel that his former wife was planning to move houses to Suffern, New York, together with their five children. A few weeks later, Mrs. Steltenkamp’s legal counsel let Mr. Russenberger know that his ex-wife would like to come up with a reasonable visitation schedule for him, once they relocate to New York. On February 25th, Mr. Russenberger petitioned to enforce a final judgment and filed a motion for temporary injunction to prevent his ex-wife from relocating with the kids to New York. Then on April 5th, the motions were granted and the children were to stay in Pensacola to finish their studies before relocating.

When Mrs. Russenberger married her new husband, Mike Steltenkamp, she knew that she and her new husband would eventually have to relocate to Suffern for his new job position. Also, even before their marriage, they have already bought a new house in Suffern and that they already intended to relocate in January of 2003. On May 1993, Mr. Russenberger filed a motion for contempt and asked the court to enforce a visit schedule. As a result, negotiations ensued but no agreement was made because the Father would not agree to the children traveling to New York and living there. He also said that any travel to New York would infringe on the temporary injunction granted by the court in April. A hearing was then set to decide whether to allow Mrs. Steltenkamp to bring the children to New York but days before the date of the hearing, she called Mr. Russenberger to inform him that she was already in New York with the kids for a few weeks and that he wouldn’t be able to exercise his visitation rights for the duration of their trip.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Missouri high court sides with immigrant, discusses New York Family Lawyer

by Stephen Bilkis

The Missouri Supreme Court granted a Guatemalan immigrant a retrial in a lower court over a child custody case. They ruled that the state did not follow law when she was caught in an immigration sweep, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The court stated that the state terminated her parental rights prematurely, which allowed her son to be adopted by another family. Even thought the court sided with the immigrant, she was not reunited with her son. She will have another hearing before a lower court to determine whether her parental rights should be terminated, a New York Custody Lawyer declared.

The woman was detained when she was working illegally in a poultry processing plant. Instead of allow her to arrange for her 6-month-old son, her custody was terminated and her son was adopted. Her son is now 4 years old and has been with his adoptive parents for over two years now.

Published on: February 8, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Parents who separate must continue financially supporting their children even after their marriages have already been dissolved. However, according to our New York Family Lawyer, it is natural for parties under cases like these to be full of bitterness and resentment directed towards each of the parties. Usually, a custodial parent is appointed to determine the children’s residence as well as for tax purposes. Some custodial parents refuse visitation rights from non-custodial parents, who in turn, refuse to pay for child support. When this happens, the children’s welfare is put on the back seat. This is one of the drawbacks of separation. In this case that we will talk about, the Mother was awarded custodial rights and was receiving benefits from public assistance. Naturally, the Department of HRS will seek he father for child support who was allegedly in arrears for more than $980. Therefore, a motion was sought to hold the father in contempt for refusal to pay child support.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the HRS found out that the father was financially able to pay for the child support. During the time of the hearing, the Father defended himself by stating that the reason he did not pay for child support is because of the Mother’s refusal to allow him to see his child. And because of that, the court rules on the Father’s favor and concluded that the Father was not found to be acting in contempt and that he is not liable to pay for child support for an indefinite period. This made the HRS appeal the reversal of the trial court’s decision. In addition to the Father’s defense, the trial court also found out that neither and order of visitation nor was a request for one made by the Father. Our Nassau County Family Lawyer clarified that if the Father wanted to visit the children, all he had to do was ask the court to permit him to visit and if he was able to secure one, and the Mother refused the visit, the Mother will be held in contempt.

Since the Father did not do anything to appeal the court or have the Mother be held in contempt, he unknowingly waived his visitation rights. The trial court was not able to modify the child support terms because no proper proceedings were invoked to be able to settle the issue. To modify the child support, the parties could have agreed for new terms and the need for the modification must be thoroughly explained and justified. How the new terms will be able to support the child must also be discussed and conferred with by the parties. If and when they cannot reach for a settlement, then they may ask the Court to modify the child support terms. Again, the new terms must be justified and explained and that they must be granted on the basis of a change in one of the parent’s circumstances such as loss of a job, disability, inability to pay, etc. However, in this case, none of these proceedings happened. Thus, the Father was found to be in contempt for refusing to pay for the child support and using the lack of visitation as a justification for doing so. The trial was then recommended to be remanded or sent back to a lower court for further trial and action. Moreover, it was suggested that the Father’s duty to pay for child support must be enforced according to the law.