New York Family Law Blog

Published on: January 28, 2012

Gay couple files complaint after being turned down by two beds and breakfasts for their civil union celebration

by Stephen Bilkis

Two men, who had been long-time companions, were thrilled when civil unions became legalized in Illinois. They immediately began planning their celebration but came to find, that although the state accepted their sexual orientation, two bed and breakfast facility owners had not.

The pair filed complaints stating the two owners had refused to rent them facility because they were gay. The couple alleged it violates the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public, explained a New York Family Lawyer.

One of the owners of the bed and breakfast said, “I only host traditional weddings and not civil unions.” He reiterated in a later email, “At this point we will just be doing traditional weddings.”

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 27, 2012

Lifetime Alimony Being Challenged in TN

by Stephen Bilkis

Scheduled on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s late spring docket is a case that many believe could change the way that alimony is awarded in TN, a New York Family Lawyer read recently. The case that is receiving the focus is a divorce case that has been seen a divorced couple embattled in the courts since 2007.

At the time of the couple’s divorce, the appeals court ordered the man to pay $1,250 in alimony each month to his ex-wife of 21 years. At the time of their 2009 divorce, her salary was $72,000 and his was $137,000. Other sources have stated that the type of alimony that was awarded in this case is typically reserved for another situation that includes the woman having sacrificed her career for her family, is over the age of 50, and is unable to find a job that can pay her enough to maintain her current lifestyle.

While the opinions on whether a lifetime alimony award should remain in place varies, the underlying principle behind alimony is to ensure that the remaining family members do not have to needlessly suffer simply because one of the marital partners decides they no longer desire to continue in the relationship. There are also varying opinions as to if someone should be forced to pay alimony for the lifetime of the other partner, or until that person should decide to remarry. As a Nassau County Family Lawyer was also told, this is what the man who is party in the above-mentioned divorce is arguing. Part of his argument is that his ex-wife may never remarry simply because she would want the alimony payments to continue.

Published on: January 26, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Rights Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

In a relationship that ended in June 1991, Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. The two never married, mentioned a New York Family Lawyer. Jenifer Troxel and Gary Troxel are Brad’s parents, making them the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Natalie. Even after the separation and since Brad lived with his parents, he had taken his kids at his house over the weekend to visit. In May 1993, Bad had committed suicide, ending his life. After the death of their son, Mr. and Mrs. Troxel still saw their grandchildren regularly. By October 1993, Ms. Granville told them that she wanted to limit their visit to her daughters to just one short visit per month.

It was December 1993 when Mr. and Mrs. Troxel filed a petition to get visitation to their granddaughters. What they asked for was two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks of visitation each summer. Ms. Granville said she was not against them visiting her children, but the length of the visits and how often is the one that she wanted to limit. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said, Ms. Granville wanted the visit to be once a month only and just for the whole day with no overnight visits. The Superior Court issued an order for visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both petitioning grandparents’ birthdays.

Ms. Granville, at this time already married to Kelly Wynn, filed an appeal with the court. The Court of Appeals sent the appeal back to the Superior Court. Their decision was that the visits were beneficial to the children, Isabelle and Natalie. They considered the standing of Mr. and Mrs. Troxel as part of a large, central, loving family, in an area that will give the children access to their cousins and music. They said that the children should also spend time with their step father’s six other children with their mother and step father.

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 Decides Parental Rights for Same Sex Couple

by Stephen Bilkis

Two female partners, jointly entered into a sperm donation agreement with the sperm donor. In the agreement, both were described as “recipient,” “mother” and “co-parent” from what a New York Family Lawyer found out. The agreement had removed all the rights of the sperm donor with the rearing of the child and that the co-parents will be the one responsible for any decision regarding the child. The agreement also had a provision that if in case, the mother of any of the child or children can no longer take care of them because she was deceased or legally disabled, it is in the child’s best interest to be with the co-parent.

A Nassau County Family Lawyer said that in the agreement, the mother is the one who conceives and gives birth to the child. The recipient is the one who receives the sperm. The co-parent is the one who agreed to be the parent of the child but did not give birth to them. The two women were to be “psychological parents” to any child or children whom they may have.

One gave birth to a child as a result of the sperm donation. The two signed another agreement, which said that it was a joint decision to conceive. They agreed to both share in the financial responsibility of raising the child as well as equally share in providing for the child until it reaches the age of maturity. Even if one was not a natural parent, she has assumed the role as one. She was part of the pre-natal phases and plans to be part of the child’s life as a parent. A Nassau County Child Support Lawyer read that even if they no longer live together, the agreement as to how to take care of the child will remain intact. The gave each other authority to make decisions regarding the child’s medical and dental health.

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.