New York Family Law Blog

Published on: September 29, 2012

Defendant Contends Right to Adequate Hearing was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: September 28, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Rosita Ram – Parker as the petitioner and Piliganor Parker as the respondent. A New York Family Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Family Court of Bronx County. The respondent has motioned to have an order to vacate a four year final order of protection vacated. This order was issued upon default in the Family Court of Queens County. The protection order requires that the respondent stay away from the petitioner Rosita Ram – Parker and their three children.

Case Procedure History

The petitioner, Rosita Ram – Parker filed an instant family offense petition in the Family Court of Queens County on the first of August, 2006. The petition alleged that the respondent Piliganor Parker had physically assaulted her on a number of occasions and had threatened to shoot her.

Published on: September 27, 2012

Court Affirms Previous Custody Arrangement

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. A New York Family Lawyer said the case involves the petitioner and appellant Angel M. and the respondent Nereida M. The order that is being appealed was made in the Supreme Court of Bronx County by Judge Diane Kiesel. The order granted a final order of custody to the respondent mother with visitation rights given to the petitioner father.

Case Discussion and Decision

When reviewing the records of the case the court finds that it was in the child’s best interest to award custody to the mother. A New York Custody Lawyer said the records show that the father tried to thwart any relationship the mother had with the child. The mother was willing to ensure that the father was given adequate time with the child.

Published on: September 16, 2012

Custody Awarded to Grandmother

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with Jessica W, Sandra A.H., et al as the petitioner and respondent. The respondent and appellant in the case is Josefina M. The appellant, Josefina M. is appealing an order that was made in the Family Court of Bronx County by Referee Peter Kuper. A New York Family Lawyer said the order granted the petition for custody of the subject child to the paternal grandmother and allowed visitation rights to the respondent mother.

Case Discussion and Decision

There were extraordinary circumstances that existed in this case and it is found that the Family Court of Bronx County properly determined that it was in the best interest of the child to grant custody to the petitioner, the paternal grandmother of the child.

Published on: September 16, 2012

Mothers Parental Rights Revoked

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The respondent and appellant in the case is Katherine S. The petitioners and respondents in the case is The Children’s Aid Society et al. The matter deals with Alex S. who is a dependant child under the age of eighteen.

A New York Family Lawyer said the appellant is appealing an order that was made in the Family Court of Bronx County by Judge Jane Pearl. The order terminated the appellant’s parental rights after findings of permanent neglect. Custody and guardianship of the child were awarded to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption.

Case Discussion and Decision

Published on: September 15, 2012

Father Loses Parental Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals a dependent child under the age of eighteen years old. The respondent and appellant in the case is Frank G. The petitioner and respondent in the matter are the Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau.

A New York Family Lawyer said that Frank G. is appealing an order that was made in the Bronx County Family Court by Judge Carol Ann Stokinger. The order was entered around the 22nd of June, 2009 and determined that the respondent father had permanently neglected the child. The father’s parental rights were terminated by the order and custody of and guardianship of the child was given jointly to the New York City Commissioner of Social Services and the petitioner agency.

Case Discussion and Decision

Published on: September 14, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: September 13, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The matter before the court deals with support for a child under the Family Court Act, article 4. The respondent and appellant in the case is Dolores Schaefer Bolatin. The appellant and respondent in the matter is George Bolatin. The case is being heard in the court of appeals in New York.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the divorced wife, Dolores Schaefer Bolatin made an application in the Family Court of Bronx County to modify a judgment that was made in the Supreme Court of Nassau County. The judgment made in the Supreme Court of Nassau County granted the divorce and directed the ex-husband to pay the divorced wife $75 a week in support plus $17.50 each week for each of their two children. The order awarded custody of the children to the wife and the divorced husband received visitation rights.

Published on: September 12, 2012

Court Decides Visitation Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and a woman had a turbulent romantic relationship that was marked by frequent disagreements. The disagreements resulted in a pattern of a parting of ways, a reconciliation; a revival of love only to end back in disagreements and a parting of ways.

In April 2000 when the man and the woman were living together in New York, the woman gave birth to their common child, a daughter. A New York Family Lawyer said a year later, the woman booted out the man from their shared apartment. That same month, the man filed a petition in the Family Court of New York asking for visitation rights with her natural daughter. Days after the man filed the petition the woman filed her own petition for sole custody of her daughter and permission to relocate to Virginia where, she said she was a permanent resident prior to the birth of her child and that she came to New York only three months before she gave birth. She also claimed that the man was verbally abusive and that he threatened her. The family court issued a temporary order of protection.

Initially, the family court held a hearing to find out if during the pendency of the actions for custody and visitation, the father can be given the privilege of supervised visitation with his daughter. The woman vigorously opposed the granting of supervised visitation rights to the man stating that the man was emotionally unfit as he suffered from depression and that his apartment was too small for her child to visit with her father. The Family Court nevertheless granted the father’s request for temporary visitation rights.

Published on: September 11, 2012

Court Discusses Civil Unions

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent is the biological mother of a six-year-old boy conceived through artificial insemination. Petitioner and the respondent met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont, a month before the boy’s birth. Respondent repeatedly rebuffed petitioner’s requests to become the boy’s second parent by means of adoption.

A New York Custody Lawyer said after the relationship between petitioner and respondent soured they separated, respondent allowed the petitioner to have a supervised visitation with the boy each week on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. However, respondent began scaling back the visits she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the boy.

Petitioner then filed a case with the Supreme Court by order to show cause, seeking joint legal and physical child custody over the boy, restoration of access and decision making authority with respect to his upbringing, and appointment of an attorney for the child.