New York Family Law Blog

Published on: January 23, 2012

Court Denies Proposed Relocation of Parent

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother had filed an appeal against an order that disallows her to move to Texas with her two children. The mother had two sons with the father. They were born three years apart, said a New York Family Lawyer. Almost five years after the youngest was born, the parents divoced. In the final judgment for the dissolution of marriage, the court had them share parental responsibility. The custody of the children was given to the mother, with the father getting liberal visitation. The decision specifically said that the visitation is at least one night in a week plus every other weekend. A restriction on the relocation of the mother and the children was not provided in the decision.

The mother and her new husband lives in Texas with his son. They met when he was assigned in their area for an extended period. About a year and three months after the dissolution of the marriage was finalized, the mother filed a petition to change the visitation provisions because she will be marrying her new husband, and they would be moving to Texas. The father filed a case with the court asking for an injunctive relief. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said this was to prevent the mother from moving the children to Texas. It was granted by the court.

A final hearing was done in November 2004 where the new husband, the mother and the father testified. The new husband said he was a right-of-way agent for the oil and gas industry. According to him, he earns about $70,000 to $90,000 per year, his line of work though is not open in the current State. The mother’s testimony mentioned the benefits of moving the children to the smaller community of Ponder, Texas. She said her new husband has a new 3000-square-foot home and that there was a public school nearby. According to a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, the mother testified she was currently earning $58,000 per year, and can be promoted in her current employment. Once they move, she planned to be a stay at home mother, but if necessary, she could find a comparable employment in Texas. Although she does not have family in Texas, they are just two and a half hours away in Oklahoma. The father said he works nights, from eleven in the evening to half past seven in the morning. According to him, if he missed any scheduled visitation, it was because of work. Their normal activity of boating, fishing, bowling and other recreational stuff often include the children’s paternal grandparent, aunts, uncles and cousins.

Published on: January 22, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Adoption Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple got married and had one child. Unfortunately, the father died, and the paternal grandparents were granted visitation rights in the final judgment of dissolution. December of the same year, in a hearing that was rescheduled, with the mother properly notified, the court gave the paternal grandparents a right to take their visitation at the mother’s current address. The mother did not appear in court for this, according to a New York Family Lawyer. The paternal grandparents, were not able to find the mother at the child in the address. January of the following year, the grandparents filed a motion for contempt with the court against the mother. The hearing was scheduled for March of that year.

The maternal grandparents filed a petition with a different county court for the adoption of their grandchild. This was filed four days before the scheduled hearing for contempt in the original court. From what a Nassau County Family Lawyer found out, the maternal grandparents presented a signed consent from the mother. The mother did not appear in the rescheduled hearing for contempt, so a warrant of arrest was issued by the court. The following month, the mother contact the paternal grandparents. They agreed to a visitation schedule so the arrest warrant was withdrawn. The hearing was set for May 26 and the mother said the visitation could start in July.

At the hearing in May 26, reported a Nassau County Child Support Lawyer, all parties attended and the court granted the request of the mother to have the visitation start in July. The court was not aware of the adoption petition in the second court. The following day, the second court heard the petition for adoption, with them unaware as well of the hearing in the original court the day before. It was in June that the paternal grandparents were notified of the adoption. They filed another contempt motion and a petition to restrict the removal of the minor child from their county. The adoption petition was vacated, as well by the court. The motion of the paternal grandparents was granted.

Published on: January 22, 2012

Court Rules on Child Visitation Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Three months into a couple’s brief marriage, they were separated and by the fifth month, wife filed for the dissolution of the marriage. When she filed the petition, she also said that she is with child. In her statement she testified that it was husband’s and her child, said a New York Family Lawyer. The husband denied being the father of the child at first, but after the child was born, the two had agreed on a marital settlement agreement. The husband agreed pay $119.14 per month for child support until the child is considered as an adult. The agreement also stated that he should pay for the medical expenses during pregnancy that was not covered by insurance. The wife was to have sole custody of the child, and she could change the surname. There was no mention of visitation rights.

About a year and a half after the agreement, a judgment of dissolution was taken by the court, basing it on the agreement of the two parties. The requirements and terms of the child support were repeated. Mr. McAlister asked his lawyer about the visitation rights and was given the answer he should not worry as he would have them. According to the transcript a Sufflok County Visitation Lawyer read, Mr. McAlister tried seeing the child at the wife’s residence after the baby was born but was turned away by the wife. He tried again a few months later but still the same thing.

The husband filed for a Supplemental Petition for Modification. This was to give him visitation rights to his child. The court denied his motion, but he appealed against the ruling. The Court of Appeals said in their deliberation that a parent has a natural right to a significant relationship with their child. The only limit is how they act in front of their child, which should not negatively affect the child’s moral or welfare. The court also stated that the courts can grant sole custody with or without provisions for visitation rights of the other parent. In this case though, the Court of Appeals said that it was not even mentioned so there was no determination if the husband should have visitation rights or not. A Suffolk County Custody Lawyer read that they remanded the case back as to give the chance to the father to present his case with the best interest of the child for him to have the said rights.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Child Support Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Two years after a couple got married, their first child was born. After about four years of being married, the couple got divorced. Custody was given to the wife, and the court gave the father reasonable visitation rights. The wife got married again shortly after the divorce. She moved to Phoenix, Arizona after and did not notify the father, according to a New York Family Lawyer.

The father contacted missing children agencies in an effort to find the mother and the children, as he did not know where they went. The wife never tried to contact husband to get child support, even though she knew where was. After five years, she contacted father and told him where the children were. He resumed the child-support payments and visitation immediately. Two years after resuming contact, the wife filed a claim for child support in arrears.

In her claim, she reasoned that even if there was interference with the visitation, it is still the obligation of the non-custodial parent to pay child support. Child support and visitation are independent of each other. According to a Staten Island Visitation Lawyer, the Trial Court found the mother guilty of laches, which means she negligent in her making the claim. The court said she is not entitled to the child support in arrears. The mother appealed against this saying, she, being guilty of laches is not an appropriate reason not to grant her petition.

Published on: January 21, 2012

Court Rules on Whether the Nonpayment of Support Effects Visitation Rights

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple was married for about five years. A year into their marriage, the wife gave birth to their only child. A New York Family Lawyer said that in the final judgment in the dissolution of their marriage, the mother was given custody of their child. The father was granted visitation rights and based on their monthly income, ordered to pay $150 per month for child support plus $50 per month for the months before the final judgment.

In the year that followed the finalizing of the divorce, each party had brought numerous motions for contempt. The mother claimed the father was not paying child support. The father alleged visitation was being withheld. By December of the year that followed the dissolution, the father filed a petition without counsel to modify the provision for the child support saying because of illness and inability to pay. From what a Westchester Custody Lawyer found out, the father was able to show evidence of his illness and that his income has been reduced to $200 from $800. The $200 was coming from welfare benefits. This being the court still found him in wilful contempt and denied his motion to modify the child support. Part of the ruling was to reduce the child support to $75 each month even if the modification was denied. The court said as well, that visitation should be reinstated if father paid the May child support by May 2, and keeps it current.

Another was order was issued May 5 stating that the visitation is not to happen until he complies with the previous order and shows his child-support payments to be current. There was no record where the court says visitation was terminated, previously. The father appealed for a review of this ruling. He questions the order of the Trial Court where it made the payment of the child support the condition for visitation.

Published on: January 20, 2012

Court Rules on Nonpayment of Alimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This case begins where a couple was divorced, and the mother got the custody of their two children. The children were fourteen years old and twelve years old respectively at that time of the divorce. The father was given visitation right of not less than eighty-five days per annum. The alimony set was at $1,800 per month and for child support it was at $1,000 per month per child. A NYC Visitation Lawyer said the mother did not comply with this order, which made the father file a petition for modification of the alimony to $1,000 and decreasing the child support to $300 per month per child.

It was determined that the mother was making their children decide whether they want to see their father or not. It is between them and their father, who lives in Florida. She does not discourage them to see him, but she does not encourage it as well. The Trial Court granted the father’s petition, and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The mother filed a motion for contempt of court against her husband saying he is not paying the alimony. She asked the court as well to award the alimony in arrears and to have it continued. According to a New York Family Lawyer, the Domestic Relations Commissioner reviewed the file and found that the father was in arrears for the amount of $3,600 until that month, and the next regular payment should be made the following month. He testified he did not pay the alimony because he was not able to visit with their child. The older one was already emancipated. The mother, he said, refused to discuss visitation with their daughter. He did not deny that he could make the payment as the amount was deposited to an escrow account. He raised the same issue as with his claim where because of the denial of visitation, he did not pay the alimony.

Published on: January 20, 2012

Court Rules on Grandparent Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

A mother was awarded custody her son, when the couple divorced. The boy was only two years old at that time. Less than a year later, the mother died. The father immediately assumed custody of their son less than a month after her death. He filed a petition to change the decree to give him custody and this was granted about three months after, said a New York Family Lawyer. The order showed he had already remarried, and that he allows visitation for the maternal grandmother, with his child.

When the grandmother received the child for a visit, she asked a different court to award her temporary custody of the child. This was granted by the court and there was no order from the previous court to transfer jurisdiction to them. According to a New York City Custody Lawyer, a hearing took place to hear the father’s side. After the review and the testimony of the father, the custody was given to the father, and the court ordered that the child be delivered to him. Visitation was not included in the ruling.

The grandmother filed a motion to modify the divorce decree about a year later so she could have visitation rights. The court granted her those rights and said she can have the child for thirty hours a week in her home or anywhere else. If the parties are unable to agree on the schedule, it was set to be from noon on Saturdays until six in the evening on Sundays. A New York City Visitation Lawyer mentioned as well that the court instructed both parties not to take the child outside their jurisdiction without their approval. Another two years passed before the grandmother filed another motion with the court against the father for contempt. She claimed that the father denied her visitation for the second week of February that year. In her petition, she said he announced his intention to deny her visitation in the future.

Published on: January 19, 2012

Court Changes Child Support Based on Visitation

by Stephen Bilkis

This case was about a couple whose divorce was finalized in 2007. In their marriage, they had one child who was given to the father’s custody. In the divorce judgment, a marital settlement was also included. Because of the big difference in the income of the mother and father, the bulk of the expenses for the child was assigned to the father. The mother was to cover for the medical and dental insurance of their child, said a New York Family Lawyer. The mother was given visitation of at least forty percent of the overnights. This is subject to certain conditions. The first was for the mother to have psychological evaluation, and she should attend an on-going psychological or psychiatric counseling. The second is to have mother’s home inspected frequently for home and overnight visitation.

According to a Nassau County Family Lawyer, the father asked the court to modify the judgment. He asked this a year after the divorce. This was to have the mother pay child support because he claims to have suffered a serious injury, which lowered his income significantly. In his petition, he alleged that the child’s needs also increased, and the mother’s financial status has improved. In response, the mother said she was the one entitled to receive child support after the time-sharing was adjusted. The mother filed a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing officer recommended that it should be granted and to have the father pay $182 for should support. The Circuit Court adapted the recommendation and denied the father’s motion to vacate.

The case was submitted to the Court of Appeals for review. For a summary judgment to be allowed, the court says there should be no disputed issues of material fact and the party asking for it is entitled as a matter of law. In this case, the father did not meet the requirements. The decision was based on the assumption that a parent spends a substantial amount of time with the child. Meaning, the time spent is at least forty percent of the overnights per year. The parent’s agreement was already such, and that cannot be disputed, said a New York Visitation Lawyer.

Published on: January 19, 2012

Court Rules on Terms of Final Divorce Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

Child visitation cases are very common legal battles encountered by a Brooklyn Visitation Lawyer, when children of separated parties become subjects of exchanges of custodies.

A visitation exchange happens when a child moves from one parent to another at a time specified in custody exchanges judgment. In this case, as reviewed by one of our lawyers, the Father of the child appeals to a higher court for a reversal of a prior court’s decision that held the Father in contempt for letting their child fly to from New York to Florida alone, which violated the previous court’s written final judgment. In addition, the Mother stated that the Father had permitted the five year-old child to board a flight with an ear infection.

Custody and visitation cases may naturally bitter and sometimes even result to non-appearance of either of the parties during trial or appeals, according to a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer. In this case, during the time of trial, the Father was a resident of New York City and the Mother was residing in Tampa, Florida and a final judgment was given by a previous court to settle the ex-couples arguments over previous visitation exchanges. These are the things stated on the amended supplemental final judgment: (1.) that all visitation exchanges will transpire Pinellas County Visitation Exchange, (2.) that in case the visitation facility is not open, the ex-couples would each notify the other and the exchange of guardianship will then be held in the airport’s police station, and (3.) that the Court expects that the child will be able to fly all by herself when she becomes 8 years old.

Published on: January 18, 2012

Is Avoiding Refinancing a Mortgage After Divorce Possible?

by Stephen Bilkis

Going through a divorce for any reason is difficult even in the best of conditions. A New York Family Lawyer also claims that when couples have purchased property together and has both names on a mortgage that these conditions become even more problematic. Allow us to explain.

Although many divorce settlements include provisions that married couples, who have purchased a home together, must sell the home outright and the couple divide any proceeds of that sale between them after the vested interests in that mortgage have been paid. Another common scenario is that if either of the parties desire to keep position of the home that they buy the other party’s share. Either of these scenarios are normally carried out within months of the couple’s divorce.

However, there is a potential problem with one party simply buying out the other party according to a Brooklyn Custody Lawyer. That does serve to remove one of the party’s from the deed or title, but it does nothing to remove their name from the mortgage. It’s a fact that there is a little known option to avoid the additional costs and problems of refinancing that a mortgage lender may or may not allow—release of liability.