New York Family Law Blog

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.

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.