Boyfriend’s Parental Rights Maintained

June 14, 2014 By

father's rights lawyerIn a case of first impression, Matter of A.S. v. B.H., a mother brought an application seeking to set aside an acknowledgment of paternity which had been signed by her boyfriend. The mother claimed after the acknowledgment of paternity was executed, she performed a home DNA test and found out the boyfriend was not the child’s biological father. The mother claimed the child, who was three years old, had special needs and was incapable of bonding with the father. She therefore claimed the father should have no parental rights with regard to the child.

Child’s Bonding with Father

Family Court Judge Michael Hanuszczak found the mother’s argument concerning the child’s bonding ability, “exaggerated and self serving.” He also found her assertions concerning the issue of bonding to be speculative. He went on in his decision to state “under [the mother’s] line of reasoning, a special needs child…would be denied a father if the mother did not lend her approval to the relationship.” He further stated “in cases involving the best interests of a child the court looks beyond any limitations of the child to determine whether a parental relationship exists.”

Family History

The mother and boyfriend had a relationship from time to time. The boyfriend had signed an acknowledgment of paternity when the child was born in December 2011. The mother was unsure of whether the boyfriend was actually the biological father of the child. There was testimony that showed the boyfriend was involved in the raising of the child during the period of time the parties lived together. The boyfriend and the child developed a relationship with each other until such time as the boyfriend’s relationship with the mother soured. She then cut off his relationship with the child.

The Judge’s Decision

Judge Hanuszczak in his decision, ruled it was not in the child’s best interest to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity. He also saw no reason to order the child, who had bonded with the boyfriend, not be allowed to have a relationship with the boyfriend because a situation had been created where it was in the child’s best interest to maintain that relationship. The boyfriend was the only father figure this child knew. The attorney for the boyfriend stated “my client was able to show that he was the sole father figure in this child’s life and to remove him would destroy the parent child relationship.”

Conclusion

This decision is a victory for father’s rights.parental rights advocate

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

New York Family Court Keeps Jurisdiction Over A Child in Virginia

June 10, 2014 By

father's rights attorneysAn appeals court (Third Department in upstate New York) has recently held pursuant to New York Domestic Relations Law section 76-a, a Family Court located in New York State had continuing jurisdiction over a child until neither the child nor the parent of the child had a significant connection to the State of New York and there was no longer substantial evidence in New York State concerning the child’s protection.

History of the Case

Angela Lawrence and Guy Belcher had two children, a son born in 1999 and a daughter born in 2001.  They were divorced in the State of New Hampshire in the year 2005.  After the divorce, Guy Belcher moved to the State of New York.  He brought a custody case in the year 2007.  Pursuant to the decision in the custody proceeding, he received custody of his son and visitation with his daughter.  The daughter thereafter moved to Virginia to live with her mother.

Belcher eventually sought sole residential custody of his daughter in 2011.  In his petition for custody, Belcher claimed his daughter was being physically abused by her stepfather.  He also claimed the stepfather had physically abused his son while his son was visiting with his mother in Virginia.  Family Court Judge Courtenay Hall initially awarded the father temporary custody of the daughter but thereafter overruled herself.  She found the court in New York lacked jurisdiction to make any determination with regard to the case.  Guy Belcher appealed to the Appellate Division of the Third Department.

Appeals Court Decision

The appeals court held “initially, that the Family Court erroneously found, because its prior order addressed custody only with respect to the son, that the court did not have continuing exclusive jurisdiction as to the issue of custody of the daughter. ‘Child custody determination’ is defined, however, as ‘a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child’.”  This is pursuant to Domestic Relations Law section 75-a.

The appeals court took the position since a New York Family Court had entered a ruling with regard to visitation in the year 2007, it continued to have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to this matter.  The court cited in its opinion, the daughter had continued to visit with her father in New York during vacations and holidays.  The court’s decision stated “the son allegedly witnessed the abuse committed upon the daughter and was himself the victim of abuse and neglect.”  “Furthermore, the father witnessed the bruising and other injuries suffered by the daughter, and possesses evidence regarding a conversation he had with the mother following the incident in which she purportedly stated that the physical abuse was ‘no big deal and well deserved’.”

Conclusion

In the end, the appeals court simply felt New York was the “more appropriate and convenient forum” to make necessary decisions with regard to this case.advocate for father's rights and custody

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

Using Forensic Psychologists As Experts In Custody Cases

May 30, 2014 By

father's rights lawyerIn a custody case, each parent seeks to prove to the court that it is in the child’s best interest that they receive residential custody of the children. To accomplish this goal, evidence must be submitted establishing that the parent advocating for custody is actually the parent that would provide a better, nurturing life situation for the children.

How is this done? One of the ways of establishing one parent being a better parent or having better skills to raise the children is to cause both parents to be evaluated by a forensic expert with the hope each parent’s expert comes down on their side for custody. It is important to utilize a forensic expert to avoid each of the parents telling the judge why he or she is the better parent. Although this can provide the judge with some material that would enable him or her to make a decision, it is generally not sufficient. A forensic expert’s testimony can back up a litigant’s arguments and statements, they would be the parent to enhance the children’s lives and therefore they should be awarded residential custody of the children by the court.

How Do Forensic Experts Operate?

The forensic psychologist will usually have a series of interviews with each of the parents. In addition, the forensic psychologist will interview the children separately and usually in the custody of each of the parents. The forensic psychologist will also have the parents take a variety of psychological tests. In addition, the expert will look into issues as to whether the parents have drug or alcohol problems, have a history of abuse or neglect, and investigate other issues with regard to the parent’s abilities to raise the children. In addition, the forensic experts will usually interview any third parties who reside with each of the parents. The forensic expert seeks to observe each parent’s interaction with the children during their interviews while the child is present. Forensic experts will also review court records and other information related to the case. In some situations, a forensic expert will review school records and speak to the children’s teachers.

Custody Decisions

The forensic expert makes recommendations to the judge handling the custody case. The judge, based on evidence submitted in court, the testimony of the parties and third parties, and the report submitted by the forensic expert renders a decision as to who should be the residential custodial parent of the children. The basis of the court’s decision is what would be in the best interests of the children. Courts look into the quality of the home environment and the level of parental guidance each parent can provide for the children. Courts also look into each parent’s ability to provide for the children’s emotional, intellectual, financial and developmental needs. Courts also take into consideration which parent would do a better job promoting the other parent’s relationship with the children. It is the duty of a residential custodial parent to promote the relationship of the children with the other parent.

Unfortunately, judges are trained in the law and not trained to evaluate parenting skills. Some judges rely very heavily on the reports of forensic evaluators, while others take them into consideration but don’t give them as much weight. Deciding who should become the custodial parent is a difficult task. Judges usually pressure the parents to try to resolve the issue on their own. They may suggest a joint custody arrangement to be negotiated out of court. However, if the parents can’t agree, they are entitled to a trial and the judge will determine who should receive residential custody of the children.custody advocate for fathers

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

Appellate Court Overrules Trial Court’s Decision Giving Mother Sole Custody

May 28, 2014 By

father's rights lawyerThere was a marriage between Melissa C.D. and Rene I.D. in 1990. Three children were born from the marriage. A fourteen year old daughter, a five year old daughter, and a seventeen year old son. The parties lived together until October 2010.

In a proceeding in November 2010, acting Supreme Court Justice Ann O’Shea awarded Melissa sole residential custody of the parties’ daughters. She made this ruling in spite of the fact the fourteen year old child wanted to continue to live with her father. Judge O’Shea’s decision was based upon her finding the daughter’s best interests were to have no contact with her father or brother for six weeks after moving. Although Justice O’Shea awarded physical custody to Rene, she gave the parties joint decision making authority with regard to all issues concerning healthcare and education. However, in the event of a dispute between the parties Melissa was to have the tie breaking authority to make the final decision.

Children Alienated

The basis for Judge O’Shea’s decision was her ruling that Rene had alienated the older children. She found the alienation related to Rene making inappropriate comments about Melissa. Judge O’Shea found that as a result of the parental alienation of the two older children, they were “vindictive, cruel, angry and broken children.” Judge O’Shea understood the oldest daughter would not be happy with being forced to live with her mother against her wishes. However, in her decision she stated this was “temporary and far less emotionally destructive than abandoning her to an unfit parent which may leave her with permanent emotional scars.”

Appeals Court Decision

The appeals court found although Rene had made inappropriate comments with regard to Melissa, Judge O’Shea’s ruling was incorrect. They found she was “placing undue emphasis on a single factor, the father’s alleged alienation” of the two children. The appeals court found the decision was not in the oldest daughter’s best interest. The appeals court stated in its decision this would “disrupt her life by removing her against her wishes from her father and brother in Manhattan, where she had always lived, and placing her with her mother and her mother’s lover, a situation that she is not comfortable with, on Long Island, in a community that she does not know.” The appeals court felt Judge O’Shea did not take into consideration Melissa’s inappropriate behavior. The court found Melissa’s inappropriate behavior was a factor in the children’s feeling of abandonment and anger. In addition, the appeals court panel took into consideration a court appointed independent, forensic evaluator at the time of the trial had testified there was no evidence the two older children had been alienated by the father. The appeals court also advised the father to be careful as to what he says to the children in the future. His obligation will be to promote the relationship between the children and the mother.

Conclusion

advocating father's rights on Long IslandThis was a victory for father’s rights.

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

Father’s Rights in 2014

May 22, 2014 By

father's rights attorneysToday more and more fathers are obtaining custody of their children. The bygone days when there was a presumption that the father was the bread winner and the mother took care of the children and should receive custody are long gone. In the State of New York, fathers have equal rights to custody of their children. In most families today, both parents work to help support their family. More and more fathers are involved with the day to day affairs of taking care of and nurturing their children. Family dynamics have changed significantly in the last decade.

Fathers Matter!

Fathers play an important role in their children’s lives. If the father seeks to have custody of his children, he should use due diligence and hire an attorney who is experienced and knowledgeable with regard to advocating on behalf of fathers. Both fathers and mothers bond with their children. Recent studies show that children who do not have a father in their lives are subject to a variety of negative effects. Some of these effects are: (1) Children who do not have guidance from their fathers have a higher school dropout rate. (2) Children raised in families without the benefit of a loving father use illegal drugs on a greater basis than children who are raised in a family that has both a father and a mother in it. (3) There is a greater percentage of children raised in a fatherless family, committing acts of domestic violence.

Fathers help their children develop traits that allow them to be successful during their life. Fathers who are prevented from having quality time for visiting with their children should fight to protect their rights. An experienced father’s rights attorney will be able to analyze a custody or visitation case and provide the father with a road map to protect his rights and achieve a greater possibility of success in the case.

Helping Fathers in Custody and Visitation Problems

Our office works with fathers regularly concerning issues regarding custody and visitation. There are many issues fathers face when litigating custody and visitation matters. There are a variety of situations that can create a negative impression of a father by the courts. Some examples of these situations are the father moving out of the house where his children reside, failing to aggressively pursue employment, failing to fight made up charges of domestic violence alleged by the mother, and failure to maintain a regular form of contact, communication and presence in their children’s lives.

Children’s Best Interests

Decisions concerning custody and visitation by judges take into consideration the children’s best interests. The father’s rights lawyers at the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo are available to speak with fathers who have issues concerning their children seven days a week. Call for a free consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or 1-800-344-6431.experienced father's rights advocate

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

Father Denied Custody – Custody Given to Wife

May 20, 2014 By

father's rights lawyerAn action for divorce was brought in Westchester County. A judge granted the plaintiff, wife, a judgment of divorce. The parties had two children from the marriage. They had settled all issues concerning who was going to pay the marital debt and any equitable distribution of marital assets. The court was faced solely with the issue of who would receive custody of the children of the parties.

Justice Linda Christopher rendered a decision that the mother was more willing to allow and encourage access, and to promote a positive relationship between the children and the father. In addition, there were allegations of domestic violence and issues with regard to the mental stability of the parties.

Father Acts Inappropriately

Justice Christopher noted in her decision the father did not allow the children to go to the mother’s place of residence until the mother obtained a court order regarding this matter. In addition, she found the father was a controlling individual. He had demeaned the mother in front of the children. In addition he had, without cause or justification, called the police on the mother and advised her she was nothing more than a nanny to his children.

Sole Custody Awarded to Mother

The court awarded the mother sole custody. However, pursuant to the custody order, the mother was obligated to enroll in and remain in a psychotherapy program to help her with her physical displays of anger which had been directed to the father.

Conclusion

Courts take seriously the issue of the residential custodial parent providing a nurturing and positive relationship between the children and the other parent. In this case, the court found the mother was more likely to take this action even though she had anger management issues.

best interest of the childrenElliot Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. His office helps fathers obtain extensive parenting time (visitation), and custody of their children.

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

Wife’s Application in Divorce Lawsuit to Punish Husband Fails

May 15, 2014 By

dad's attorney on Long IslandIn the case of Steineger v. Perkins, special referee Louis Crespo sitting in a Family Court Part in New York County had a case before him in which a plaintiff wife alleged that her husband had failed to produce documents necessary for the prosecution of divorce and therefore should not be allowed to present evidence with regard to financial issues regarding the case. The wife brought an application to preclude the husband from offering any evidence or testimony of any type at the trial concerning financial issues. In addition, she brought an application for attorney’s fees and monetary sanctions against the husband. She claimed the marital estate held millions of dollars in it. She also claimed the defendant’s allegations that these funds were his separate property was untrue.

Separate Assets

The defendant husband took the position that yes he had millions of dollars in separate assets. These assets were all accumulated prior to his marriage to the plaintiff and were not subject to equitable distribution in a divorce.

Special Referee Crespo, in his decision, found the testimony of the wife, plaintiff, did not support her claim her husband had intentionally failed to produce documentation of his assets. He also didn’t find she had been prejudiced by the husband’s actions. Special Referee Crespo reached the decision the wife did not meet her burden of proof in showing her husband had purposely or willfully failed to produce documents or that he was engaging in the type of conduct which would prevent him giving testimony or introducing evidence at the time of trial. The court noted in its decision since the wife had not met her burden of proof she was not entitled to preclude the husband’s introduction of financial testimony into evidence. In addition she was not entitled to either attorney’s fees or monetary sanctions against the husband.

Conclusion

If you cooperate with the court and provide the appropriate information, courts won’t punish you.

father's rights advocate Elliot S. Schlissel represents fathers in custody cases and with regard to issues regarding child support. He has been referred to as the dad’s attorney.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,

Fathers Have Equal Rights To Obtain Custody of Their Children

May 7, 2014 By

father's rights lawyerCan a father realistically obtain custody of his children in New York? Are custody cases open and shut with a pre-conceived vision by the judges that mothers are always the superior parent? Does the law in New York recognize a mother should get custody of her children unless the father can show she is an unfit mother? Are children better off being raised by their mother? The answer to all these questions is NO! Fathers in New York State have equal rights to obtain custody of their children. The laws do not favor mothers! The laws in New York concerning custody are gender neutral.

Who Decides Custody Cases?

The short answer to this question is, a judge. There are no jury trials in custody cases. All child custody cases are resolved by judges. There are two courts in the State of New York that deal with child custody issues: the Supreme Court and the Family Court. The Supreme Court and the Family Court both have jurisdiction to deal with custody issues. Supreme Court judges resolve custody issues in divorce cases. Family Court judges resolve custody issues in situations where the parents are not married to each other or if the parents are married when one of the parents, who initiates the proceeding, elects to go to the Family Court and resolve the issue of custody.

Custody and Child Support

The parent who is awarded custody by either a Family Court judge or a Supreme Court judge is entitled to child support from the other parent to help him or her support the children.

Custody Litigation: Winners and Losers

The large majority of custody cases are resolved without trials. In most situations, the parents of children, working in conjunction with their attorneys, settle custody issues. A common way of resolving custody disputes is for both parents to have joint custody. However it should be pointed out, even in joint custody situations there is one residential custodial parent and the non-residential custodial parent must pay child support to the residential custodial parent.

Sole Custody

Sole custody is where one parent has exclusive custody of the children. The other parent has visitation with the children (now referred to in the politically correct term of parenting time). In sole custody situations, the residential custodial parent has control over his or her children’s lives and makes all major decisions on behalf of the children.

Custody Litigation Can Be Emotionally Charged

If you are involved in a custody dispute or your spouse is preventing you from seeing your children, you need the most experienced, well versed attorneys you can find. The lawyers at the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo, for more than 45 years, have been helping fathers obtain custody of their children and also obtain extensive parenting time with their children when the mother is the residential custodial parent. Our phones are monitored 7 days a week. Call us if you have a problem.custody assistance for parents

Filed Under: Fathers Rights

Court Rejects Father’s Lack of Jurisdiction Arguments

May 1, 2014 By

father's rights advocateA husband brought an action to vacate a judgment of divorce taken on default against him. He also asked the divorce lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety. He claimed there was fraud involved in the lawsuit and the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. There was a special referee appointed to handle the case. The special referee awarded the wife 100% of all of the family’s marital assets which she could produce evidence of. The referee rendered this decision in part based on her husband’s inappropriate conduct in hiding and dissipating assets. In addition, the court took into consideration the fact the husband destroyed evidence during the course of the divorce proceeding.

Bad Service of the Summons

The husband in the case claimed he was not properly served with the Summons with Notice. He therefore argued the court did not have jurisdiction to try the case involving him. Therefore the judgment entered against him on default needed to be vacated.

Referee’s Decision Upheld By The Court

Justice Rachel Adams sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in Kings County, confirmed the decision made by the referee in this case. She rejected the husband’s arguments for vacating the default judgment. She stated the husband had filed bankruptcy on the day after he was served with the summons in the divorce lawsuit. In the bankruptcy proceeding he listed the pendency of the divorce case against him for purposes of getting it stayed by the bankruptcy court. (A stay is a temporary injunction preventing a case from going forward). Justice Adams, in her decision, pointed out the husband did not challenge the jurisdiction or personal service of the divorce proceeding within the confines of the bankruptcy proceeding. He also did not challenge the application to lift the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy Court to allow the divorce proceeding to proceed in the Supreme Court in Kings County. (Bankruptcy proceedings are brought in the United States Bankruptcy Court, a federal court. Divorce proceedings are brought in state courts. In New York State, they are brought in the Supreme Court Divorce Part.)

Husband Refused to Appear

Justice Adams stated in her decision the husband voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally did not appear in his divorce case. He therefore defaulted. In addition, he refused to cooperate with regard to producing documents necessary for the prosecution of the divorce. Justice Adams denied the husband’s motion and found that he had knowledge of the pending divorce lawsuit.

Conclusion

If you get served with a Summons with Notice or a Summons and Complaint in a divorce action, don’t ignore it. If you do, your spouse can end up with 100% of all of the assets. That is the absolute worst result you can have with regard to assisting father's with custodyequitable distribution of assets in a  divorce.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: ,

Father Given Sole Legal and Physical Custody of Children: He is Allowed to Relocate Back to Texas With the Children From New York

April 28, 2014 By

helping father's win custody There was recently an interesting case before Justice Lori Sattler who sits in the Supreme Court Part in New York County. A father and a mother had each brought petitions in a post judgment custody proceeding. Each of them sought sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two children. The father presented in his moving papers there had been problems regarding his visitation with the children, especially during weekends and holidays. He claimed these problems arose right after the wife moved from Texas to New York. The wife, who had received custody of the children from a court in Texas, moved to New York several days after entry of the judgment of divorce giving her custody by the court in Texas.

Mother Alienates the Children Against Father

The father, in his moving papers, asserted the mother had been involved in a program of parental alienation of the children against him. He also argued in his papers the mother was an unfit parent. He claimed she was incapable of taking care of the children because she was continually abusing drugs.

Mother’s Arguments

The mother alleged in her papers the father had sexually abused his daughter. However, the court after reviewing the allegations and the evidence submitted regarding these allegations determined that this was not true. Justice Sattler found the mother to be less than honest in her testimony. She found there were inconsistencies in the mother’s testimony. Justice Sattler held the mother’s testimony created questions with regard to her ability to help develop a loving relationship between the children and the father. She concluded there was a change of circumstances since the entry of the judgment of divorce in 2011 by the court in Texas. She found this change of circumstance required she reevaluate what was in the children’s best interest.

Custody Modified

Justice Sattler determined a modification of the Texas custody order was warranted. She ruled the father was to receive sole legal and physical custody. In addition, she authorized him to relocate back to Texas because this was in the children’s best interests. Justice Sattler went on, in her decision, to state the father was more capable of providing the children with a stable and appropriate living environment. He was better suited to foster a relationship between the children and their mother.

Conclusion

custody for husbandsIn this case, the court found the father was the more stable parent and it was in the children’s best interests to live with the father in another state. The writer assumes the mother’s parental alienation of the children contributed to this judge’s decision to award the father sole legal and physical custody. The author of this article has been involved in dozens of cases where mothers have failed to promote the loving relationship between the father and the children. Alienating children against one parent damages the children. It is in children’s best interest to have two loving parents and not to be participants in a war of roses between the parents.

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