Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with nearly 45 years experience representing fathers in all aspects of family law. He and his associates are available for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Once a court order is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction concerning the issue of custody, the parties to the proceeding are required to comply with all of the provisions of this order. This is true even if compliance with the court order is inconvenient for one of the parties. Custody orders determine who shall have parenting time with the child during the course of a year. There can be problems with schedules concerning court ordered visitation. If the parties are not able to amicably work out changes in the scheduling of the visitation they have to comply with the court order.
When a parent fails to comply with a court order concerning visitation and parenting time with the child, the other parent whose rights have been impacted can take legal action to hold the other parent in contempt, have that parent sanctioned, and/or have custody changed. In those situations, the court can ask the parent who violated the prior order to pay the other parent’s legal fees.
Custody orders usually take into consideration the child’s relationship with each of the parents and the non-residential custodial parent’s rights to have parenting time with the child.
Relocation and the Impact on the Non-Residential Custodial Parent
In situations where the residential custodial parent seeks to relocate the court will take into consideration how the relocation of the child will impact on the other parent’s ability to visit with the child and maintain a relationship with the child. There is an appeals case in the State of New York called Stetson v. Feringa which provides an important example of how courts in New York look upon requests for relocation.
In this case, the parents had joint custody of their son. The son resided with the mother and the father had visitation. The father had brain surgery prior to the child’s birth. He suffered from various impairments as a result of the brain surgery. The mother had been facilitating the visits with the father and providing transportation to and from the visits.
Mother Refuses To Provide Transportation For Child’s Visits With Father
The mother met a fellow online and decided to marry him. Unfortunately she lived in New York and he lived in Oklahoma. For purposes of the marriage he temporarily moved to New York. After the marriage, the mother refused to provide transportation for the visits of the boy and his father. Due to the lack of transportation the father had no visitation with his son for about six months. Thereafter the mother brought a proceeding to modify the prior custody order. She also sought to move with the son to Oklahoma. The Family Court found the mother’s request was without merit and dismissed the proceeding. She appealed the ruling.
The Appeals Court
The appeals court rendered a decision that the purpose of the mother moving to Oklahoma was her remarriage. The court found this was not a sufficient reason to uproot the boy. They found it was not in the child’s best interests to move to Oklahoma, but in the mother’s best interests. The mother claimed she would have enhanced financial capabilities in Oklahoma, but the court found these were not significant enough to overcome the fact that it was not in her child’s best interest to move from the locale of the father.
Out of Court Resolution
If you are having difficulty concerning visitation and parenting issues with the other parent of your child, the best way to deal with this is through an out of court negotiated resolution. If you cannot speak to him or her, you can hire an attorney to deal with this issue.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer who represents clients concerning custody, child relocation, divorce, child support and other family related issues. He has been helping his clients for almost 45 years regarding these matters.
An appeals court has ordered that the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Mistreatment remove the name of an aspiring pediatrician. He had been reported for hitting his two year old son on his butt on one occasion. In its decision to remove the father’s name from the child abuse registry, the appeals court stated there was no evidence the incident impaired the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition.
Maurizio was giving his son a bath in July of 2012. His son started to eat soap. He slapped him one time on the butt to discipline him and convince him that eating soap was not something he should be doing. The next day the father noticed his child’s butt was bruised. He told the son’s daycare provider about the incident. The daycare provider reported him to Child Protective Services. Child care providers are one of the many professionals who are mandated under New York State Law to report suspected cases of child abuse and/or child neglect.
An investigation was undertaken by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The Social Service worker determined the incident should be considered “indicated” for child abuse, inadequate guardianship and excessive corporal punishment.
Father Requests Child Abuse Report To Be Marked “Unfounded”
The father requested the report be changed from indicated to unfounded. A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge found the father’s inappropriate behavior was supported by a “preponderance of the evidence” and that the “indicated report should be disclosed to all inquiring agencies.”
At the time of the hearing, the father testified he spanked the boy one time, his son cried briefly, and the family thereafter resumed to its normal activities. His son did not complain of pain. There was no negative impact on the boy as a result of the incident. The impression left by the slap on the child’s butt was exacerbated by the boy’s sensitivity due to the hot bath water the boy was in at the time. The father was remorseful and cooperative with the Department of Social Services. He took an anger management program and he had a positive attitude about changing his ways concerning corporal punishment.
His wife, the child’s mother, testified the husband had not on any other occasion meted out excessive corporal punishment to their other two children and their usual manner of disciplining their children was giving them a “time out”.
The Appellate Division (an appeals court) in its decision stated a parent could “use reasonable physical force to promote discipline”. The court reversed the lower court’s decision and changed the fact that he was “indicated” for child abuse to “unfounded”.
Conclusion
Parents live in the real world with their children. Sometimes children need to be strongly reprimanded to put them on the right path, prevent them from being injured, and to drive home points which don’t seem to stick any other way. Child abuse agencies tend to be overly zealous and look at each and every indication of any physical contact between a parent and his child involving discipline to be inappropriate. The pendulum on this issue in many situations has swung too far. The decision of this court was appropriate in setting aside an incorrect ruling concerning this father.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel has been representing fathers for more than 45 years in all aspects of family law and divorce law. He and his associates are available for consultation. To schedule a consultation, please call 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or send an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
In a proceeding before Judge Ann O’Shea sitting in the Family Court of Kings County, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) brought a neglect proceeding against a father. They alleged the father R.S. had neglected his daughter by committing acts of domestic violence against the child’s mother. They also claim the father had violated an existing Order of Protection which had been taken out by the mother against him. During the course of this proceeding the father was granted temporary visitation. This visitation allowed him to visit with the child for eight hours on Saturdays while being supervised by his mother, the child’s grandmother.
The father has now brought a further application to the Family Court asking that his visitation be extended to supervised overnight visitation.
The attorney for the child’s mother has alleged that she opposed the father having further visitation with the child. She was not comfortable with the idea of further overnight visitation. This was in spite of the fact that ACS consented to the further supervised overnight visits by the father from Friday evenings through Saturday.
The court took into consideration that the visitation with the father was going well. The mother argued the child was not comfortable with this further expansion of the visitation and therefore the father’s visitation should not be expanded to overnights.
Judge O’Shea found the expansion of the father’s visitation was consistent with the policy of the Family Court Act and ACS guidelines for determining the appropriate level of supervision regarding family visits. The court found the ACS guidelines allowed for overnight visitation and weekend visits between a parent and a child during the pendency of proceedings in the Family Court for neglect. The court further found the extension of the visitation by the father did not expose the child to negative risks concerning physical, mental or the emotional well being of the child. The court therefore granted the father’s petition extending his visitation.
Father’s Rights
Fathers have an important role to play in their children’s lives. Where a child has two loving, dedicated parents, the child’s life is enhanced. Granting the father, in this case, expanded visitation with his child was in the child’s best interest. Family Court judges should do everything in their power to promote father’s rights to have relationships with their children in all situations where it is shown that the father is having a positive impact on the children’s lives.
This case involves an appeal by a father seeking to set an Order aside which granted the maternal grandmother custody of the father’s child. The father’s appeal was denied. The grandmother was granted primary residential custody of the child.
The father and mother were not married. They resided together until the baby was six months old. At that time, the father was incarcerated. The mother resided with her mother, her child’s grandmother. There came a time when the mother was also incarcerated. During the time both parents were in jail, the grandmother dutifully raised the child.
Father Obtains Visitation When Released From Prison
When the father was released from prison he obtained visitation rights with his child. The father thereafter brought a proceeding seeking physical custody of the child. He claimed both he and the child’s mother had maintained a continuing relationship with the child.
Justice Elizabeth Garry wrote the decision for the Appellate Division for the Third Department (an appeals court). She found there were extraordinary circumstances involved in this case. The award of primary physical custody by the Family Court to the grandmother with joint custody to the child’s parents was affirmed. She stated in her decision that considering all of the testimony, the history of the circumstances of the parents and the child’s developmental needs, the grandparent was “uniquely qualified to oversee the child’s therapeutic regime…and the father does not understand or refuses to accept the severity of the child’s developmental delay.” It was therefore in the best interest of the child the grandmother be awarded primary physical custody of the child.
Conclusion
This decision is supported by the theory that the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration when the court grants custody. In this case the grandparent was the most suitable and appropriate residential parent. Grandparents play an exceedingly important role in the development of their grandchildren. In addition to this case being a victory for children’s rights, it is also a victory for grandparent’s rights.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years representing fathers in all aspects of divorce and family law. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
Parental alienation can have a destructive effect on a parent’s relationship with their children. Children subjected to parental alienation often exhibit hatred toward the targeted parent. The following are a list of the symptoms of parental alienation syndrome:
Elliot S. Schlissel is an attorney with more than 45 years of experience representing parents regarding custody and visitation issues. He represents clients throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He is available for consultations.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years of experience representing fathers in custody proceedings. He and his associates handle all aspects of family law and divorce litigation. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
A mother had brought a proceeding in the Family Court requesting she be allowed to move with her children to Texas. The Family Court denied her application. She thereafter brought an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court. She claimed the Family Court had applied an incorrect standard in rejecting her request to relocate herself and the children to Texas. She claimed the Family Court’s decision denying her relocation application on the ground she failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant this relocation was not the appropriate standard to be used by the Family Court in this proceeding. At the time of the trial in the Family Court, the mother testified she wanted to relocate to benefit from the economic and emotional support she would receive in Texas from her father and other members of her family who resided there.
The children’s father opposed the mother’s relocation application. He took the position it was a detrimental move to his relationship with the children.
The Appeal’s Court denied the mother’s application to relocate. They found the decision made by the Family Court was correct. They stated although no change in circumstances must be established to support a relocation petition, the mother had failed to show the relocation of the parties’ children to the State of Texas would be in their best interests. The Appeal’s Court considered all of the relevant factors with regard to the relocation of the children. They took into consideration this relocation would have a negative impact on the children’s well established relationship with their father and his family who reside in New York.
Conclusion
Father’s relationships with their children are important. Appeal’s Courts should not approve relocations which will destroy or have a negative impact on the father’s relationship with the children unless there is sufficient evidence to show the children will benefit from this relocation.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney who litigates relocation cases.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
