New York Family Law Blog

Published on: August 5, 2012

A Child’s Relationship with Both Parents Important in Custody Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever a couple faces a divorce, they must also face custody decisions that involve the children of the marriage. A New York Family Lawyer said the love that a parent has for their child is the greatest love that exists on this planet. To require that the time that they spend with that child be split with another person is heart wrenching. This is especially true if the child is very small. It is not natural for a parent to spend time away from their child. Emotions run high and people who at one time loved one another enough to create a child, become mortal enemies in the quest to have all of the time that they can get with that child. Child custody disputes change people forever.

The court system of New York recognizes this problem. They strive to ensure that the welfare and security of the child is the most important consideration. The court appoints an attorney for the child or children that serves as a buffer for the children and the court. This attorney listens to the child and addresses his or her concerns during the custody hearing. It is the objective of the court to ensure that the children are considered. If the parent that the child is spending most of the time with is not given primary custody, it can have devastating effects on the psyche of the child. Toward this goal, the court strives to create an environment where the child’s life and lifestyle is altered as little as possible by the decision of their parents to obtain a divorce.

The court system also strives to ensure that the child is encouraged to maintain a nurturing relationship with the non-custodial parent as well. A New York Custody Lawyer studies in recent years have demonstrated that children who are not allowed to foster a nurturing relationship with both parents whether divorced or not, do not have the benefits that are afforded to other children. When one parent is so bitter toward the other parent that they wage war on them through the children, the courts of New York will step in to remove custody from that parent. In the courts of New York, the custodial parent is entrusted with the difficult task of acting like an adult when it comes to handling the relationships of the child and the other parent. It is a sorry affair when a parent attempts to turn the child against the other parent in a divorce. A divorce is an action that is taken by the parents usually based only on the relationship that the parents have with each other.

Published on: August 4, 2012

The parties were both born in Albania

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts

The parties were both born in Albania. On 14 December 1989, plaintiff first moved to the United States after receiving a green card through the American Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. In 1997, he became a United States citizen. Plaintiff lived and worked in the United States continuously from late 1989 until the date of the commencement of the herein action, only returning to Albania for brief vacations over the years, approximately the first six years of the marriage. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff is 48 years of age and defendant is 36 years of age. Plaintiff first returned to Albania in 1992, at which time the parties began to date. The parties became engaged when plaintiff returned to Albania for a six week visit in 1993.

Sometime in September 1995, the parties got married in a civil ceremony in Albania after a two year engagement. Defendant lived with plaintiff’s family after the marriage but plaintiff returned to the United States where he was working six weeks after the marriage.

Published on: August 3, 2012

On 20 February 2001, the subject child who was at that time 10 months old

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 February 2001, the subject child who was at that time 10 months old, had been hospitalized with a burn mark to her right eye, burn marks below her right cheek, a one-inch burn mark across the back of her neck, bruises and burn marks below her nose, three fractured ribs, cuts and scab marks on her hands and arms, cuts behind and inside her ears, cuts and scabs on both the soles of her feet, a circular mark on the top of her head, bruises to the left side of her face and swollen hands. A New York Family Lawyer said respondents failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the child’s injuries. The petition also noted that, in November 2000, when she was only six months old, she had sustained a dislocated and fractured elbow, and respondents failed to seek medical attention for her until two days after the injury had been sustained.

On 30 April 2002, the child was adjudicated abused under the Family Court Act after a fact-finding hearing and custody of the subject child has been removed from the parents. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said as a result, her three siblings were adjudicated derivatively abused and parental custody was also removed.

Published on: August 2, 2012

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed an abuse petition

by Stephen Bilkis

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed an abuse petition, pursuant to Family Court Act against the respondent mother and the person legally responsible for the subject children, respondent R., with regard to the children of the respondent mother.

A New York Family Lawyer said ACS alleged in their petition that a fifteen-month-old child was in the care and custody of respondent R. and that the toddler was returned to the respondent mother with two black eyes and swelling to his forehead. It was alleged that the toddler and his eleven-year-old sibling left Brooklyn with respondent R. to go to his home in New Jersey for the weekend. Later that same day, the younger child was brought to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival. Significantly, despite her brother and sister accompanying her to New Jersey when she learned of her child’s death, respondent mother chose to spend the night with respondent R. in his home, with eleven-year-old Sheila who was present at the time of Angel’s death, knowing R. was a suspect for the homicide of her son that day.

ACS further alleged that despite knowing of these injuries and even documenting these injuries with a camera on her cell phone, the respondent mother failed to seek any medical attention. A New York Custody Lawyer said the ACS effectuated an emergency removal of the surviving children upon the death of the toddler. Subsequently, respondent mother gave birth to another baby. ACS sought for the child’s custody. A New York Custody Lawyer said the Court determined that the temporary removal of the infant was necessary to avoid imminent risk to this child’s life and health.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Case Filed on Behalf of Child who was at that time 10 months old

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 20 February 2001, a New York Family Lawyer said the subject child who was at that time 10 months old, had been hospitalized with a burn mark to her right eye, burn marks below her right cheek, a one-inch burn mark across the back of her neck, bruises and burn marks below her nose, three fractured ribs, cuts and scab marks on her hands and arms, cuts behind and inside her ears, cuts and scabs on both the soles of her feet, a circular mark on the top of her head, bruises to the left side of her face and swollen hands. Respondents failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the child’s injuries. The petition also noted that, in November 2000, when she was only six months old, she had sustained a dislocated and fractured elbow, and respondents failed to seek medical attention for her until two days after the injury had been sustained.

On 30 April 2002, the child was adjudicated abused under the Family Court Act after a fact-finding hearing and custody of the subject child has been removed from the parents. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said as a result, her three siblings were adjudicated derivatively abused and parental custody was also removed.

Published on: July 31, 2012

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed an abuse petition

by Stephen Bilkis

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed an abuse petition, pursuant to Family Court Act against the respondent mother and the person legally responsible for the subject children, respondent R., with regard to the children of the respondent mother.

A New York Family Lawyer said that ACS alleged in their petition that a fifteen-month-old child was in the care and custody of respondent R. and that the toddler was returned to the respondent mother with two black eyes and swelling to his forehead. It was alleged that the toddler and his eleven-year-old sibling left Brooklyn with respondent R. to go to his home in New Jersey for the weekend. Later that same day, the younger child was brought to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival.

Significantly, a New York Custody Lawyer said that despite her brother and sister accompanying her to New Jersey when she learned of her child’s death, respondent mother chose to spend the night with respondent R. in his home, with eleven-year-old Sheila who was present at the time of Angel’s death, knowing R. was a suspect for the homicide of her son that day.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Court Decides Custody in Light of Abuse Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Child visitation issues in divorce actions are reliant upon the agreement of the parents, cooperation from the children, and decisions of the courts. A New York Family Lawyer said the court of New York strives to enhance the relationships of the children with their parents. However, it is not always possible for everyone involved in the situation to continue to foster a positive relationship with each other.

Many factors affect the outcome of custody decisions in the courts of New York. When a custody issue is shadowed by domestic violence, it can be even more difficult to ensure that the children continue to have a good relationship with both of their parents. When domestic violence issues are involved, the rights of the parents to have visitation with the children becomes secondary to what the court determines is in the best interest of the child. If the child would be endangered by contact with the abusive parent, then any positive benefits from visitation would be countered by the negative effects of the contact with the abuser.

This is especially true when the courts have ordered that the abuser is prevented from contacting the child or the other parent because of a protective order issued by the court. When the court determines that a protective order is necessary to protect the family members, it changes all of the rules. A New York Criminal Lawyer said protective orders are necessary to ensure the safety of family members when one or more of the parents have been charged with offenses related to domestic violence. Offenses that are included in most domestic violence laws include but in most cases are not limited to offenses related to physical assaults, such as simple assault, aggravated assault, and assaults against minors or the elderly. They include offenses related to battery, such as simple battery, aggravated battery, and battery against minors or the elderly. Some states have laws against criminal trespass that include property damage that is less than $500 in value, or going onto a property without the consent of the owner or remaining on a property without the consent of the owner. There are numerous other offenses that relate to domestic violence such as stalking, aggravated stalking, harassment, harassing phone calls, and other offenses that are used in domestic situations to instill fear in the other members of the family.

Published on: July 29, 2012

Family Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody and visitation issues in divorce actions are traumatic events in the lives of the parents and the children who are affected by the court’s decisions. Many people panic when they file for divorce and fear the loss of custody of their children. When parents panic and make bad decisions as they relate to custody issues, they can adversely affect the outcome of their custody dispute. A New York Family Lawyer said that rather than panic and remove the children from the state, it is always better to discuss your options with a qualified attorney who can fight for your rights legally. When parents abduct their children to avoid losing custody of them, they just about guarantee that they will lose custody of the child.

In June of 1979, a New York woman panicked during a divorce action and absconded with her son to Arizona. The lived in hiding in Arizona until they were discovered in 1981 and the child was returned to New York and placed in the sole custody of his father. At that point, the father filed a petition to have sole custody of the child and restrict any visitation that the mother would have no visitation with the child because he fears that she will attempt to kidnap the boy again. The court Special Term declined to modify the judgment of divorce to prevent the mother from visiting with the boy. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said the father made a motion to the Supreme Court to modify the decree. The mother countered that motion with her own motion to prevent a modification of the decree.

The court discovered that the mother had filed a motion with the Family court in Arizona. The first decision that became necessary was which court would have jurisdiction over the dispute. The New York Family Court had first declined to make any modification to the motion for a divorce decree because they felt that Arizona should have the jurisdiction over the custody dispute and that New York would be an inconvenient location to try the case. The Supreme Court disagreed. They contend that it was inappropriate for the New York Family Court to deny hearing the case and modifying the divorce decree. The original documents had been prepared in New York. New York was the registered home state of the child. The child had only been removed from New York during an illegal action. Therefore, Arizona courts should never have had any type of jurisdiction over the case at all.

Published on: July 27, 2012

Father Contends Child Support Not Being Used for Child

by Stephen Bilkis

New York Family Court can become creative when it must deal with diverse personalities in divorce decrees. This is especially true when the divorce decree includes a custody issue with the parents of minor children. There are almost as many options for customizing custody decrees as there are people who must be governed by them.

A New York Family Lawyer said sometimes, parents are not happy with the choices that the courts make for them in regard to the custody arrangement prepared by the courts. When that happens, one or both of the parents can become belligerent about the inaction of the orders. It becomes the court’s duty to enforce the decree and the custody orders that are attached to it. When one or both of the parents of a minor child do not comply with the court orders, the courts will issue penalties that can be quite harsh.

In one case from New York, a mother was not being compliant about allowing her ex-husband the visitation that the court had ordered for him. After she failed to present the child for visitation on several occasions, the court ordered that she would have to deal with the consequences. The court ordered that one half of her child support payments from her ex-husband would have to go into an escrow account with her attorney. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that money would then be used solely for the purpose of enhancing the relationship between the father and the child. In order for her to obtain funds from that escrow account, she would have to present an accounting to the court.

Published on: July 25, 2012

Father Petitions Court to Take Child Out of the Country

by Stephen Bilkis

When child custody issues involve a parent who is not native to the United States, the court is forced to deal with additional issues that are not common among domestic cases. Many countries do not respect divorce proceeding rulings from outside of their borders. A New York Custody Lawyer said that means that it is unfortunately fairly common for one parent to abscond with a child to a different country. It becomes very difficult for the other parent to regain visitation with that child when they have been taken overseas. In order to prevent this type of parental abduction, courts work to create reciprocal agreements with other countries. However, not all countries are willing to comply.

Patriarchal countries are often non- compliant when faced with the concept that the mother of a child has a right to the child against the will of the father. In cases of that nature, it can become almost impossible for the mother to obtain the child. For this reason, some mothers will actively take steps to prevent a father from a patriarchal country from removing the child from the United States. In one case of this type, the mother refused repeatedly to obtain a passport for her minor child to accompany her father outside of the United States. A New York Family Lawyer said the father made an application to the court to have the mother obtain a passport for the child and to enable him to take the child back to his homeland to meet his family overseas. There is no other implication that the father might be a threat to abscond with the child.

However, it is important to ask why the mother was resistant to the notion of the father taking the child overseas. The mother is more familiar with the ability of the father to abscond with the child than the court is. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said he must assume that she presented more evidence about her concern for allowing the father to take the child overseas than is recorded in the documents of the case. However, one must also assume that the court heard both sides of the argument and was able to review the risk involved that the father will not return to the jurisdiction with the child.