New York Family Law Blog

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.

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 8, 2012

Defendant Claims Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties met in New York, while the defendant (husband) was on a vacation from his employment as a diplomat with the United Nation particularly, a Deputy Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip. At that time, the plaintiff (wife), was newly admitted to the New York bar and employed as an attorney with a law firm.

A New York Family Lawyer said that the defendant transferred to Jerusalem as Director of UNRWA operations. A New York Divorce Lawyer said that the parties maintained a long-distance relationship for a year until the plaintiff terminated her employment in New York and joined the defendant in Jerusalem, where she became a Lecturer and Program Supervisor. For over a year of living together, they married each other at the British Consulate in Jerusalem.

Thereafter, defendant was transferred to Lebanon while the plaintiff had been a working with the United Nations Development program in Jerusalem and continued for a few months more before joining defendant in Lebanon. The parties’ child was born in Beirut, Lebanon.

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 5, 2012

Visitation Sought by Non-Biological Father

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Respondent is the biological mother (herein the respondent-mother) of six-year old boy (the subject child or the child) conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent-mother and petitioner met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in November 2003, the month before the subject child’s birth. The respondent-mother repeatedly rebuffed petitioner’s requests to become the child’s second parent by means of adoption.

Sometime in the spring of 2006, the relationship between the respondent-mother and petitioner soured and they separated. Thereafter, respondent-mother allowed petitioner to have supervised visits with the child each week on a Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. However, sometime in the spring of 2008, respondent-mother began scaling back the visits. By early May of 2008, she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the child.