New York Family Law Blog

Published on: January 30, 2012

Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

Sandra Lynn Chavis filed a paternity suit five months after her child was born on October 6. The father named was Todd Adamson. She was claiming for paternity, child support, sharing in the medical expenses, shared parental responsibility and scheduling of visitation. A New York Family Lawyer said, in response, Mr. Adamson, who lives in a different State, asked for joint custody and visitation for him and the paternal grandparents living in Georgia. The father had admitted paternity already and had given financial support as well as paid part of the medical expenses of the child. They had their own proposed visitation schedules.

By September, six months after the filing, the court had finalized a decision. In terms of the visitation schedule, they had adopted the one proposed by the Ms. Chavis without any variation. This is even after they said that they will make a compromise schedule and not adopt just one. In the judgment, it said that there will be no overnight visitation for some time as an eleven month-old child has some emotional needs and physical limitations that make it inadvisable to do. According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the court sees the want of the father and the grandparents to form a bond with the child early on, but because they are far, it will be hard for an infant even a toddler.

The father, Mr. Adamson, in the lower court’s decision gets a few hours of visitation where Ms. Chavis lives. This is done on alternating weekends. Only by the age two does he get an overnight visit, which is only once every month. It is restricted further to Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon. By age three, he can already take the child for an overnight, not a weekend visit, outside the State. Extended visits are only to be done beginning the summer before the child enters first grade. There is also no provision for the visitation of the grandparents. Mr. Adamson appealed against this ruling.

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 29, 2012

Bronx Man Injects Wife with Poison

by Stephen Bilkis

Authorities have told a New York Family Lawyer that a Bronx man allegedly injected his wife with poison before drinking it himself. Although reports are sketchy at this moment as to whether he stuck the needle into her buttocks or into her arm, the one report that is clear is that soon after the injection the 35-year old woman lapsed into a coma and died the next day.

The couple had only recently moved into the building due to a fire that had occurred at their former residence. The neighbors told a New York Family Attorney that since the couple had been unable to obtain a loan to assist them after the fire that the stress in their relationship became increasingly clear.

This stress continued to the point that police were dispatched to the couple’s residence on at least three occasions, with the latest being on Sunday, the day before this latest incident. The argument had reportedly been so bad, that the woman fled the couple’s apartment to go to her sister’s apartment that is in the same building. It was at this point that police were called to the scene, during which they filed a domestic violence report and then left, witnesses told a Nassau County Family Lawyer.

Published on: January 29, 2012

Unfit father learns of his child’s death eight years after his conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

A convicted abuser that lost custody of his children more than eight years ago, recently heard the sad news that one of his twin children had been murdered by her adopted father and the other so severely abused, that he remains hospitalized.

The father of the abused children claimed to have done everything he could to keep custody of them back in 2004. He and his wife allegedly abused drugs and engaged in prostitution prior to the charges.

“This is hard,” the grieving father said Tuesday outside his apartment. “Imagine what I could be feeling right now.”

Published on: January 28, 2012

Man arrested for putting seven children in danger while driving

by Stephen Bilkis

After drinking beer all day long, a 23-year-old man was recently pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, said a New York Family Lawyer. What the police didn’t expect to find were seven children in his car. The man allegedly had three of the children in the trunk and four in the backseat all unrestrained and all under the age of 15.

“I was taking the kids to a birthday party,” he said, “and the only way I could fit them all in the car was to put some in the trunk,” he went on to say. The man was arrested for drunk driving and child endangerment.

“His blood alcohol level was. 16, which is twice the legal limit.” The man reportedly admitted to having several beers throughout the day and claims the children were never in any danger and weren’t scared.

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.