To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. Elliot has been representing parents in child custody, CPS and ACS investigations and other family matters for more than 45 years. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net. The phones are monitored 24/7.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He has been representing fathers in child custody matters, visitation issues and all other aspects of Family Law for more than 45 years. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Grandparents: Custody or Visitation?There are different requirements or situations where grandparents will receive custody than those situations and requirements for grandparents to obtain visitation. The “best interests of the child” is the standard utilized in New York and all other states, in the United States, when determining whether a grandparent should be entitled to either visitation or to have custody of their grandchildren. The following are some of the factors utilized by courts in New York to determine whether it is appropriate to give grandparents either custody or visitation of their grandchildren:
A Best Interest Test
For grandparents to obtain visitation or custody in New York State, they must clearly show it is in the children’s best interests they receive either visitation or custody. In addition, if the grandparents are seeking custody in New York, they must show how this will affect the relationship, if one exists, between the children and their parents.
Conclusion
Grandparents’ rights are hotly contested issues in the courts of New York. If you are a grandparent and you seek custody or visitation of your grandchildren, the best way to ensure the greatest potential for success is to hire an experienced, dedicated grandparents’ rights lawyers.
Grandparents’ rights regarding custody and visitation arrangements are regulated on a state by state basis. There is a federal statute called the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 which impacts upon grandparents’ rights. This statute requires each and every state to give full faith and credit to child custody orders and decrees given by other states. In 1998, a federal law went into effect which required all 50 states to recognize and give legal enforcement to court orders from other states giving grandparents visitation rights with their grandchildren. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act requires courts in the state where the child is located to enforce child custody orders from other states.
In the year 2000, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Troxel v. Granville rendered a decision that a statute from Washington State giving grandparents visitation rights violated the due process rights of the biological parents to raise their children. Since this case was decided, there have been numerous state court decisions in New York as well as sister states and state laws trying to get around, modify, or soften the decision in Troxel v. Granville. New York State is one of the most liberal states in the country when it comes to giving grandparents visitation and/or custody of their grandchildren.
Elliot Schlissel has been litigating cases on behalf of grandparents for more than three decades. He is successful in helping grandparents obtain visitation with their grandchildren. In the appropriate situations, he has been successful in helping grandparents obtain custody of their grandchildren. He strongly believes that grandparents can play an invaluable role in the lives of their grandchildren.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He has been representing fathers in custody proceedings, visitation agreements, and all aspects of matrimonial law and family law. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Kenneth Dearden, a Westchester Real Estate Developer, was shot in the head by his wife as he slept in his home. Kenneth claims his wife tried to kill him to avoid a difficult divorce.
On November 14, 2013, Kenneth Dearden woke up in terrible pain. He had received a gunshot wound to the base of his skull. It is theorized he only survived because the shooter used an antique Deringer which had been a gift to his wife from her parents.
Dearden has taken the position his wife had been having an affair since 2011 and her lover had put pressure on her to take action to end her marriage. Dearden’s lawyer stated “with plaintiff no longer in the picture, defendant could avoid a contentious divorce, keep the marital home and never admit the marital infidelity to any family or friends.”
Wife Charged With Attempted Murder
Emily Dearden has been charged with attempted murder. Her attorney has denied the allegations on her behalf. Ms. Dearden is currently free on $150,000 bail. She has been suspended from her position as a New York Police Department psychologist.
On the night of the shooting, Kenneth Dearden looked for his wife. He wanted her to take him to the hospital. She claimed she had been hit on the head. The house’s alarm system had been turned off. Initially Dearden thought he had been attacked by an intruder. When the police came to the Deardens’ home, Emily Dearden was laundering dirty clothes. She asked the police if they had a warrant. The police found a pair of Deringers and were able to determine one of the guns had been fired. Unfortunately, the bullet taken from Kenneth Dearden’s skull was too damaged for a ballistics match.
Conclusion
Divorces may be messy and painful, but not as painful as a long term jail sentence!
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers in all aspects of matrimonial and family law. 
Can a residential custodial parent simply pack up with the children and move out of town, negatively impacting on the other parent’s visitation situation with the children and relationship with the children? The answer to this question is, no. It is necessary to have a signed and acknowledged agreement between the parents or obtain an order from either the Family Court or the Supreme Court allowing the residential custodial parent to relocate.
In the State of New York there is a case, Tropea v. Tropea which deals with issues concerning custodial parents relocating. This case determined the relocation of a custodial parent out of the “restricted area” should be determined based upon what is in the best interests of the children. As a result of this case, each request by a custodial parent is considered with regard to the circumstances of the parents and the children. A judge, after considering the facts and circumstances, renders a decision on what would be in the children’s best interest. The courts in these cases take into consideration the rights and needs of the parents as well as the needs of the children. However, the greatest weight is placed on what is in the children’s best interests.
Impacting on the Court’s Decision
The factors courts will consider on issues concerning relocation are:
Do You Need to Relocate?
If you need to relocate it is extremely important you hire the most qualified, experienced attorneys available to help you with these proceedings. Our law firm has litigated numerous relocation cases and we have an unparalleled record of success in dealing with relocation problems!
The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”) filed a neglect proceeding in Kings County Family Court. Their petition alleged the mother did not provide her child with adequate medical care. In addition, the petition claimed the child lacked appropriate supervision. They claimed the mother left the child in the care of an inappropriate caregiver.
The case was submitted to Judge Lillian Wan who sits in the Family Court of Kings County. Judge Wan found ACS did not establish the allegations appropriately. Her decision stated no medical records were presented to the court. There was no proof submitted to the court with regard to the child’s alleged medical problems. Although the mother had made a statement the child had chronic heart disease and the child had been treated by both a pulmonologist and a cardiologist in 2012, without further care, was insufficient to show the mother had neglected the child’s medical needs. Judge Wan went on further to state no evidence of any type was submitted to the court which showed the child was required to have further medical care.
Improper Guardianship
Judge Wan found there was no evidence submitted of improper guardianship by the mother. Judge Wan stated the mother was on leave from her job and home during this period of time with her child. Judge Wan dismissed ACS’ petition. She found based on the evidence submitted, ACS had failed to prove their case regarding inadequate medical care or lack of proper supervision by the mother.
The Appellate Division of the First Department, an appeals court, recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling in a divorce lawsuit which ordered the wife to pay $750,000 into an escrow account to cover her husband’s legal fees in their divorce lawsuit. In addition, the appellate court also upheld the lower court’s ruling fining the wife $15,000 for frivolous conduct with regard to filing a jurisdictional challenge to the authority of the courts in New York more than two and a half years after the litigation started.
The lower court had found the defendant wife, Guni Murjani, had “unnecessarily delayed discovery and removed the parties’ art collection.” In addition, the court found she had “controlled the parties’ liquid assets.” As a result of these actions, the lower court found she should sell or take other action with regard to her property to fund the husband’s $750,000 legal fees. The court also found the wife should be enjoined (stopped) from taking further action with regard to a suit filed in Bombay, India, which was designed to block her husband’s divorce action in the State of New York.
Channel Islands Trust
The husband and wife were the beneficiaries a Channel Islands Trust. This trust had value of between 40 and 60 million dollars. It had been established by Mohan Murjani, a Hong Kong garment industry entrepreneur. The proceeds of this trust were the principal source of income for the family. Unfortunately, Channel Islands laws keep secret all information regarding trusts. As part of the lower court decision, Judge Drager ordered Guni Murjani to ask the Royal Courts in the Channel Islands make the files concerning the trusts available to the judge.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a divorce lawyer representing clients throughout the Metropolitan New York area.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He has been representing parents in child custody, CPS and ACS investigations and other family matters for more than 45 years. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
