Visitation

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Every New York Family Lawyer has somehow encountered the common case of a grandparent seeking for visitation rights of his or her grandchildren. And in some states in the country, it becomes all the more complicated since some laws do not allow such visitation when one of the parents would like their privacy to be respected. The mother of the child involved in this case who was kept unnamed already filed a paternity action for child support from the father but he also sought visitation rights for his own mother.

It is important to note according to the that the child who is a minor was born right out of wedlock. If this is the case, there is a great chance that the child can be allowed to be visited too by the grandparents. But it is the right of any of the parents to not allow this especially when it comes to the aspect of familial privacy. This term about the rights of the parent to raise their kids without others interfering in the way. If there comes a time that they get into a disagreement, it should be taken to court and they will be the one to decide which would be best for the child.

Some researches done by a respected Nasau County Divorce Lawyer that there are cases visitation rights are given to parents only if it would be the best interest for the child involved. And it is very important to note that this scenario would only be allowed if the parents have both left their right for familial privacy by letting the court settle whatever disagreement they may have. But if it is the court’s decision to allow the grandparent to visit regularly, then this does not violate any of the parents’ privacy rights.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In September 1999, Frances Adrienne Sullivan gave birth to a son. A New York Family Lawyer said, after, she filed a paternity action against Landon Cole Sapp. This was to set custody, parental responsibility and child support for her son. By March 2001, the final decision was that Mr. Sapp was the natural father of the child. The parental responsibility was to be shared by both mother and father. The court said that the child should live with his mother, with the Mr. Sapp provided with reasonable access to his child. He was to pay child support, which he could also declare as an exemption for tax purposes for even numbered tax years and the odd number for Ms. Sullivan.

A few days after the decision, Ms. Sullivan asked the court for clarification of the dependent claim eligibility of each parent. Before this could be determined, Ms. Sullivan died in a car accident. Elizabeth Sullivan, the baby’s maternal grandmother, filed a Motion to Intervene and for the Award of Reasonable Visitation to Grandparent and was asking for a decision granting her the right to get involved in the paternity suit filed by her daughter. This is limited to certain situations and one of them is the death of a parent or both parents. To answer this, the father filed a motion to dismiss.

The lower courts ruled that the grandmother cannot intervene in the paternity suit because her daughter is already deceased, and the determination will not make a different as to can file for a dependent exemption. The visitation right was also dismissed. This was appealed by grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts.

Published on: January 30, 2012

Vistitation

by Stephen Bilkis

In a story that was like it was made for a movie, Victoria D. daughter of Carole D. was the one who had two men claiming to be determined as her father. Carole was married to Gerald D. when she gave birth to Victoria. Carole was an international model, and Gerald was a top executive in a French oil firm. He had always said he was Victoria’s father, although tests showed that more than 98% probability, she was Michael H.’s. Carole had an affair with Michael while married to Gerald. A New York Family Lawyer said Victoria was the fruit of that adulterous affair.

For the first three year of Victoria’s life, she lived with Gerald, who treated her as his own child. Sometimes, she and her mother resided with other men. May was when Victoria was born, they lived with Gerald. October of the same year, Gerald moved to New York for business, and Carole and Victoria were in California. End of October, both Carole and Michael had tests done to check the paternity of Victoria and found the 98.07% probability she was Michael’s. January of the following year, Carole visited Michael. In March, she left and resided with Scott K. and in the same year with Gerald again, but by fall she was back with Scott.

November after the year Victoria was born, Michael filed a filiation action to get visitation rights and determine paternity because Carole was not allowing him access to Victoria. About six months after, Carole filed a motion for summary judgment. At this time, she had been with Gerald since March, which lasted until July. After, she was with Michael again and this time she asked her lawyers to withdraw the motion for summary judgment. For the next eight months, they lived together and April, before Victoria’s third birthday, Carole and Michael signed a stipulation that Michael was Victoria’s natural father. The month after, Carole left Michael and ordered her lawyers not to file the stipulation. She moved back with Gerald.

Published on: January 27, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent’s Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

Bonnie Belair and Jarret Clark divorced with Ms. Belair having sole custody of their minor child. This was finalized in 1997. Mr. Clark was given limited visitation rights once he completes the parenting class that was ordered by the court. After this decision by the court, Mary Francis Drew, the child’s paternal grandmother, petitioned the court to get visitation rights. They cited the law that grants grandparent’s visitation rights in certain circumstances. By February 1999, Ms. Belair submitted her petition to the Trial Court saying that the statute violates her constitutional right to privacy.

The Trial Court refused to deliver a verdict about the constitutional challenge that was placed by Ms. Belair. They gave temporary visitation rights to Ms. Drew, which was also to be in the same place as agreed in the mediation. What Ms. Belair did was to submit a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari is an order made by a higher court about a case that they have reviewed, said a New York Family Lawyer. Ms. Belair’s petition said that because the Trial Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation law, her right to privacy was violated.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, they cited the case of Beagle vs. Beagle. It was said in that case that the state “may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.” They also said that in the same case, the court said that the best interest of the child is placed first even before there is proof of harm. The privacy that is to be expected should be no less than the one experienced while married. The question now is if the court has the right to decide whether to impose visitation rights on a parent who does not want it. The Supreme Court acknowledges that “care custody and management” is a fundamental liberty interest of a parent. The court said as well that the choice which relates to child rearing and education are fundamental rights covered by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The state does not have the right to interfere with these decisions, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and they reversed the decision of the Trial Court.

Published on: January 26, 2012

Court Rules on Louisiana Visitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case that affects two States, Sharon and Edward Heartfield were part of this not so uncommon situation. The two were divorced by the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Sharon was the one awarded custody of the children. Edward got visitation rights and was ordered to pay 2,025 per month for child support. Once the divorce was finalized, Sharon together with the three children moved to Louisiana and has lived there for about four years.

Three years after moving to Louisiana, Sharon filed a case with the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas to request for the modification of the child support. Edward responded with a cross-action where he asked for more visitation times, reduced amount of child support and to have the case transferred to Hardin County, Texas. The case was transferred to Hardin County, Texas as per request.

After this, Sharon asked the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana to issue a decision that says that the original order by the court for visitation and child support be executed. She filed a motion in the Hardin County court as well, to have them dismiss the action or move it to Orleans Parish. This was denied by the courts of Hardin County and about a month later after a hearing, they issued a modified decision. The new decision reduced the child-support payments to $1,800 per month. The court said this is also dependent on specific visitation rights. A month later, Edward filed affidavits saying that visitation was being denied so he did not pay the child support. This is when he filed for a temporary injunction order to stop Sharon from her claims in the Louisiana Court. He filed it with the States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. Sharon dropped her case connected to the child support but said that the visitation schedule threatened the well-being of her children. The injunction was granted by the Louisiana court.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Court Rules on Visitation Issue When Parent Moves Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Michael Reed and Judy Mast were married. While they were married, they had a son, Jason. About four year into the marriage, the two had problems with their marriage and got a divorce. Mrs. Mast and Jason moved to a different location, same State. Mr. Reed moved to a different city for a new business. After a year, more or less, of regular visitation with his son, his visits became infrequent and even his child support had lowered because of difficulties in his business. Mr. Reed and Mrs. Mast had agreed that Jason would stay with his mother primarily, as long as they do not move the child to a different State permanently without a court’s approval. This was done before Mr. Reed moved to a Madison. A year later, the court’s final judgment had included this provision, said a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer.

About five months after the final judgment was the time Mrs. Mast got married to her current husband James Mast. Mr. Reed remarried around three months after. Mr. Mast joined the army and was stationed in North Carolina. He did this because of financial reasons. Mrs. Mast petitioned the court a little more than a year after her marriage to move to North Carolina to be with her husband and new child. She did move to North Carolina even before the decision, but she returned to Florida every other weekend with Jason so that Mr. Reed could have his time with him, which he never missed.

Mr. Reed argued that Mrs. Mast had permanently moved the child out of the State, that the move will hamper his relationship with his son, and he is capable of providing guidance. About eight months after the initial petition, the decision was granted in favor of Mr. Reed, and the primary residence was given to him. According to the records found by a Long Island Visitation Lawyer, this was appealed by Mrs. Mast.

Published on: January 25, 2012

Court Reverses Visitation for Parent with Domestic Violence Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

Jason Leigh Owens asked the court for unsupervised visitation with his four-year-old daughter. This was only after multiple once a month supervised visits at family visitation centers. The reason for the supervised visits was that Mr. Owens was convicted and jailed for a third-degree felony for domestic violence. After an evaluation, the court said that Mr. Owens has greatly improved with his control of his emotions, especially his anger. The supervised visitation has already been maximized, mentioned by a New York Family Lawyer. From the records, the court also said, it was in the best interest of the child to move forward and give Mr. Owens shared parental responsibility and frequent unsupervised visits.

A New York Custody Lawyer said in the decision, the order was for the first eight months will have unsupervised visits in the city where the child lives. This was to be between ten in the morning to four in the afternoon every second and fourth Sunday of the month. Every third Saturday, he would have a full day and night unsupervised visits. This is from ten in the morning Saturday to four in the afternoon the following Sunday. Mr. Owens did not ask for the overnight visitation.

Kylie C. Doyle, the mother contested this decision. The first was that because the overnight visit was not even asked by Mr. Owens. She also said that the welfare of her child is not going to be protected if the visit is unsupervised. Each party is not contesting that Mr. Owen entitlement as he is not because of the conviction. What the mother is arguing about is the effect to her child and the evidence that supports it would be good for her child to be in it.

Published on: January 24, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent’s Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother gave birth to her child on March 14, 1991. The mother died in December 1993 of cancer, said a New York Family Lawyer. About two months after her death, a girlfriend moved in with the father and daughter. The girlfriend and father eventually got married in October 1994, she adopted the daughter. By the late quarter of 1997, the couple went through divorce proceedings. This is when the child’s biological maternal grandparents, filed a petition with the court for visitation, which was granted by the Trial Court. The mother and father appealed against this decision.

According to the details given by both parties, the grandparents were in good terms with the father before their daughter died. It was also mentioned that they frequently visited with their grandchild. The relationship started to fall apart when the new wife came into the picture. At first, visitation with their granddaughter was reduced and after the adoption it ceased completely.

The grandparents argued with the law that says when one or both parents are deceased then, the grandparents may be given visitation rights. The father and his new wife argued that this violates their rights as parents of the child. The parties tried mediation but were unsuccessful, and the case went to trial.

Published on: January 23, 2012

Court Rules on Out of State Visitation Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother filed an appeal to dissolve her marriage from her husband. She asked the Court to approve her moving with their daughter, to Louisiana, according to a New York Family Lawyer. She asked the court for the father and her for shared parental responsibility. In her petition, she asked for the court to give reasonable visitation to the father. She did not ask for the father to be ordered to attend parenting classes, but the Trial Court erroneously filed an emergency order to grant the mother temporary primary residential custody. The court also allowed her to move the child to a different State.

The mother and child moved to Louisiana with the granting of the court order, because of this, the father filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction to prevent the removal of a child and or return of the child to jurisdiction. He filed another motion to rush the appeal against the temporary primary residential custody and order granting the moving of the child to another State. A Westchester County Visitation Lawyer said, the mother’s motion was granted without the court giving the father to present his side and be heard. Aside from this, there was a two-month delay in the evidentiary hearing. After the evidentiary hearing was when the Trial Court granted the petition of the mother and ordered the father to take a thirty-six-week parenting course. Only after he finishes will the parental responsibility issue be reviewed. The father appealed against the decision.

The court reviewed three issues in the case. The first was if the mother presented enough evidence for the Trial Court to give her sole parental responsibility. The Court of Appeals said she was able to. Determine that she was able to do so. The second was about the complete control given to the mother for the visitation. Generally, the court said that this was an error, but given the facts of the case, they said it was not improper.

Published on: January 22, 2012

Court Rules on Child Visitation Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Three months into a couple’s brief marriage, they were separated and by the fifth month, wife filed for the dissolution of the marriage. When she filed the petition, she also said that she is with child. In her statement she testified that it was husband’s and her child, said a New York Family Lawyer. The husband denied being the father of the child at first, but after the child was born, the two had agreed on a marital settlement agreement. The husband agreed pay $119.14 per month for child support until the child is considered as an adult. The agreement also stated that he should pay for the medical expenses during pregnancy that was not covered by insurance. The wife was to have sole custody of the child, and she could change the surname. There was no mention of visitation rights.

About a year and a half after the agreement, a judgment of dissolution was taken by the court, basing it on the agreement of the two parties. The requirements and terms of the child support were repeated. Mr. McAlister asked his lawyer about the visitation rights and was given the answer he should not worry as he would have them. According to the transcript a Sufflok County Visitation Lawyer read, Mr. McAlister tried seeing the child at the wife’s residence after the baby was born but was turned away by the wife. He tried again a few months later but still the same thing.

The husband filed for a Supplemental Petition for Modification. This was to give him visitation rights to his child. The court denied his motion, but he appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeals said in their deliberation that a parent has a natural right to a significant relationship with their child. The only limit is how they act in front of their child, which should not negatively affect the child’s moral or welfare. The court also stated that the courts can grant sole custody with or without provisions for visitation rights of the other parent. In this case though, the Court of Appeals said that it was not even mentioned so there was no determination if the husband should have visitation rights or not. A Suffolk County Custody Lawyer read that they remanded the case back as to give the chance to the father to present his case with the best interest of the child for him to have the said rights.