Murder, Not A Good Alternative To Divorce

January 12, 2015 by

divorce attorney on Long IslandKenneth 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.

Wife Had An Affair

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. father's rights divorce lawyer in New York

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , ,

Relocation Issues in New York

January 7, 2015 by

helping father's win custodyCan 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.

Best Interests of the Child

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:

 

  • the nature and circumstances of the relationships between the children and both the non-custodial and custodial parents;
  • how the move will impact on the quality and ability of the child to maintain a relationship with the non-custodial parent;
  • consider how visitation arrangements will be made with the non-residential custodial parent after the move;
  • the reasons for the parent seeking to move;
  • will the child’s life be enhanced educationally, emotionally, and economically related to relocating;
  • is the parent seeking to relocate making the application to the court in good faith;
  • the closeness of the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the children;
  • how often does the non-custodial parent visit with the children, recreate with the children, attend school, social and athletic events of the children;
  • can a new visitation arrangement be worked out which maintains the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the children;
  • is there hostility or interference with visitation by the non-custodial parent;
  • are there extended family relationships that will be impacted on by the relocation, either positively or negatively; and,
  • other facts and circumstances which the court feels are relevant to the parties’ situation.

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!father's rights relocation attorney

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,

Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) Petition Dismissed

December 31, 2014 by

father's rights lawyerThe 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.

ACS Allegations Not Proven

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.father's rights attorney handling cases with CPS and ACS

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling That Wife Pay Husband’s Legal Fees In Divorce Case

December 27, 2014 by

father's rights attorneys in Metropolitan New YorkThe 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.

Lower Court’s Decision

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.

divorce lawyer on Long IslandElliot S. Schlissel is a divorce lawyer representing clients throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,

CPS Investigates A Case of Corporal Punishment

December 21, 2014 by

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.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Grandparents’ Rights

December 13, 2014 by

To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:

Elliot S. Schlissel is a grandparents’ rights lawyer with more than 35 years experience.  He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, 1-800-344-6431 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,

Wife Denied Child Support: Court Found Father the Custodial Parent

December 11, 2014 by

father's rights attorneys and advocatesJustice Matthew Cooper sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in New York County, recently had a case before him involving dueling issues regarding child support. In this case the wife had sought temporary custody of the parties’ child. She also brought an application for a temporary award for spousal maintenance, child support and in addition asked she be awarded temporary attorney’s fees in this divorce case. The husband brought his own cross application. He also asked for temporary custody. He opposed all other aspects of the wife’s application.

The Judge’s Decision

Justice Cooper found the issues concerning custody were premature at this time. In his decision, Justice Cooper stated there were no exigent circumstances presented in this case. A custody determination would not need to be done on a temporary basis. He found custody was an issue to be determined after a full trial. He therefore denied both the motion by the wife for temporary custody and child support and the cross motion by the father.

In addition, Justice Cooper found, based on where the child spent overnights, the child spent more time with the father than with the mother. Therefore for purposes of determining child support he found the father was the residential custodial parent. This was another reason for turning down the wife’s request for child support.

Temporary Spousal Maintenance (Alimony)

Justice Cooper went through the mathematics concerning the statutory temporary spousal maintenance awards. He found that $3,506 was the mathematical amount the temporary maintenance award law required. However, he found based on a variety of factors under New York Domestic Relations Law, it was appropriate to make a downward deviation to prevent injustice. He therefore awarded the wife temporary spousal maintenance of only $650 per month. This was the same amount the father had previously been paying her on a voluntary basis. In addition, he awarded the wife $5,000 in attorney’s fees.

Conclusion

Fathers should not be shy about litigating issues of custody. Fathers have equal rights to obtain custody of their children.father's rights advocate on Long Island

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,

What Are the Paternity Rights of Unwed Fathers?

December 9, 2014 by

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney who was has been representing fathers in paternity cases for more than 45 years.  Elliot and his staff of attorneys handle divorce cases, child custody and visitation, and all aspects of family law proceedings.  He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, 1-800-344-6431 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,

Parental Alienation Syndrome

December 6, 2014 by

To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 35 years of experiencing representing fathers in divorce, child custody and visitation proceedings.  He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, 1-800-344-6431 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Same Sex Marriage Does Not Prevent Father’s Paternity Lawsuit

December 4, 2014 by

Paternity rights for Long IslandersIn an unusual case in Monroe County Family Court, Judge Joan Kohout was presented with what may be referred to as a modern dilemma. A mother and her same sex wife, had a child born to them during the course of their marriage. Since the child was born during the course of the marriage, they claimed they were the legitimate two parents of this child. They argued in Family Court a man could not bring a paternity lawsuit claiming he was the father of the child. They argued the child had developed an attachment to the mother’s wife and therefore the father should be equitably estopped (barred) from being allowed to prove paternity of the child.

Judge Kohout pointed out the wife had not taken action to adopt the child. She also noted in her decision the mother and the wife were currently involved in a divorce lawsuit.

No Artificial Insemination

Judge Kohout in rendering her decision stated the mother had not been artificially inseminated. She had become pregnant as a result of having sexual relations with the man who sought to prove paternity. The sexual relations took place while she was married to her wife. The mother acknowledged the man seeking to prove paternity was actually the biological father of the child. Judge Kohout found based on these facts, even though the mother and wife were married at the time of the birth of the child, the father should not be precluded from proving he was the actual, biological father. The court took into consideration only 8 months had gone by since the child was born and the father filed his petition. The judge also stated in her decision there was no evidence the father had acquiesced or promoted the wife’s assuming the role of the parent of the child.

Judge Kohout concluded there was neither a presumption of legitimacy nor an equitable estoppel barring the father from bringing the paternity action. The court ordered that genetic marker testing be undertaken to determine if the father was indeed the biological father.

Conclusion

There is a doctrine called equitable estoppel with regard to heterosexual relationships. Under this doctrine, if a man acts as if he is the father of a child for a period of time, and thereafter changes his mind and seeks to have paternity testing to determine whether he actually is the biological father of the child, he should be barred from being able to show he is not the actual father of the child. Equitable estoppel is based under the idea it is in the child’s best interest not to change who the child perceives as his father. This is not necessarily a legal theory the writer subscribes to.Father's Rights attorney on Long Island

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »