Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is an attorney who has been handling cases with CPS and ACS for more than 45 years. He and his associates are available for consultation by calling 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
The process by which Child Protective Services (hereinafter referred to as “CPS”) and the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”) looks into allegations of child abuse and child neglect is referred to as an investigation. These are not criminal investigations. These are more appropriately described as narrative reports on the status of the children and the interaction with the children’s family related to the event or events in question. It should be noted that CPS and ACS workers are looking to find child abuse or child neglect in their investigations. Once a report of alleged child abuse or alleged child neglect is made it is presumed to be accurate by the CPS or ACS worker until such time as the worker looking into the matter determines it is more likely that child abuse or child neglect has not occurred. In other words, you are guilty until proven innocent!
The purpose of a CPS or ACS report is to reach a determination as to whether or not a child needs to be protected from potential future abuse. CPS and ACS reports focus on the circumstances involved in the family, their history, their economic circumstances, the relationship of family members, their school programs, what their household looks like, whether there are adequate safeguards in the home, adequate food in the home, whether the home is messy, ill maintained and other issues.
Although CPS and ACS workers are not criminal investigators they can have a significant impact on families. Their investigations should not be taken lightly. The fact that they are looking for evidence of child abuse and child neglect must be carefully dealt with. The presumption the CPS or ACS worker is investigating to find the truth as to what happened, may not be accurate. The purpose of the investigation is to ascertain as to whether the allegations are not true. Until such time as they reach the conclusion that the allegations in the initial report are not true, there is a presumption by the CPS or ACS worker that they are investigating an actual case of child abuse or child neglect.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney in the Metropolitan New York area. He and his associates have been father’s rights advocates for more than 45 years. He can be reached for consultation by calling 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Grandparents, in the State of New York, can bring visitation proceedings with regard to their grandchildren in the Family Court. The proceedings must be brought in the Family Court located in the County where their grandchildren reside. Although grandparents can bring these proceedings, they have to meet certain basic requirements to be successful in these proceedings.
An example of one of the situations where the grandparents can obtain either visitation or custody of their grandchildren is where one or both of the grandchildren’s parents are deceased. In addition, where the courts find the appropriate conditions exist for the grandparents to have visitation and the visitation is in the grandchild’s best interests, the courts can also grant the grandparents visitation. In these cases the grandparents have the obligation to show the court there are circumstances involving a strong relationship between the grandparents and their grandchildren and that it would be in the grandchild’s best interests to continue to maintain that relationship with the grandparents.
In cases where both parents are alive and neither of them are unfit parents, the grandparents must show, in their petition, more than that they simply have a great love and affection for their grandchildren. They must establish that their relationship with the grandchildren has existed over a period of time and the parents have taken action to prevent the continuation of this relationship between the grandparents and their grandchildren. The grandparents must show that they have tried to maintain the relationship with the grandchildren and the parents have interfered or prevented the continuation of this relationship.
If the grandparents can show they have had a relationship over a considerable period of time with their grandchildren and this relationship has contributed to the health and well-being of the grandchildren the courts will find that it is in the grandchildren’s best interests to continue to maintain their relationship with their grandparents. In these situations the court will give the grandparents visiting rights with regard to their grandchildren.
Elliot Schlissel is a grandparents rights’ attorney.
In a case before Supreme Court Justice Sharon Gianelli, in Supreme Court Divorce Part in Nassau County, Judge Gianelli granted residential custody to a mother in spite of the fact the father has a nicer home, greater financial resources, space in his home for the children and he was retired which gave him a significant amount of time to spend with the parties’ children.
The divorce case was based on irreconcilable differences pursuant to Domestic Relations Law section 170(7). In the lawsuit the mother sought sole custody of the two minor children of the parties. Justice Gianelli found “children are not grocery items”, stating that “charting a course to meet their best interests was a ‘nuanced undertaking’.”
Father Unreasonably Rigid
Justice Gianelli found the father had a pattern of unreasonable rigidness and inflexibility. She found further he showed his negative feelings towards the mother which motivated his actions. Instead of acting in the children’s best interests, the judge felt he acted in a manner to show his anger and dissatisfaction with his spouse.
Justice Gianelli found she was not convinced the father would work towards developing a healthy relationship between the children and their mother. Judge Gianelli also took into consideration the attorney for the children had recommended the mother receive sole custody of the children because this was in the children’s best interests. In addition, Justice Gianelli found co-parenting pursuant to a joint custody arrangement was not feasible in this case. In the end she awarded sole residential custody to the mother because she found it was in the children’s best interests.
Conclusion
Fathers who seek to obtain custody of their children must be careful. In addition to providing the children with an appropriate place to live, the father must show that he respects the mother’s relationship with the children and acts in a manner to promote the children’s relationship with their mother. Fathers should be aware courts take into consideration, it is in the children’s best interests to have good relationships with both parents. Conveying to the children negative impressions of the other parent is considered to be disturbing behavior by judges when deciding who should receive custody of the children.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney.
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 experience representing fathers in all aspects of divorce, family law, equitable distribution and litigation. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
The Appellate Division for the Second Department, an appeals court, in the Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 2014-1516, held a father who had been prevented from seeing his son by the child’s mother no longer would be obligated to pay child support.
In this case, the father had last visited his son in February 2010. During the period of several months thereafter, the father would go to the pick up location on his parenting time days. The mother either would not show up, or would show up and the son would not leave the car.
The mother took the position when she appeared in Family Court of extreme hostility towards the father. She stated on more than one occasion that she would never let the child spend time with the father. She said she would do “whatever it takes” to keep her son away from his father. Based on the mother’s intransigence and refusal to cooperate with regard to promoting the father’s relationship and visitation with his son, the appeals court suspended the father’s child support obligation. The court took the position that where the custodial parent prevents all reasonable access as to a child, the child support obligations may be suspended.
Father’s Visitation Suspended
It should be noted the mother’s cross motion in this case was granted and the father’s visitation was suspended. The child showed great hostility towards the father at the time of the court’s hearing. The court took into consideration the son was 13 years old and even though he had participated in therapy for a number of months to develop a relationship with his father, he was “vehemently opposed” to any type of parenting time between himself and the father.
Conclusion
This is a victory for fathers who have their visitation interfered with. But it is also a loss. As the expression goes, you can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. The same is true with children. Children who have been so alienated by one parent against the other sometimes cannot be therapeutically reunited with the other parent. Hopefully over time the father in this case will redevelop his relationship with his son.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel has been representing fathers for more than 45 years in all aspects of family law, child custody litigation 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.
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.
Forensic Evaluator AppointedIn a case in Richmond County, New York, a wife commenced a divorce lawsuit against her husband. The issue as to who would be the more appropriate parent to have custody of the parties’ special needs child was presented to the court. Justice Catherine DiDomenico sitting in the Supreme Court in Richmond County appointed a neutral forensic evaluator. The forensic evaluator was appointed to look into the issue of who would be the more appropriate custodial parent. After a detailed examination of the circumstances involving the child’s life, the forensic evaluator wrote a report suggesting the father should have physical and residential custody of the parties’ special needs child.
Wife Had Questionable Credibility
Justice DiDomenico took into consideration the testimony of the parties before rendering a decision. She found the wife’s credibility was at times not to be taken seriously. Her testimony was contradicted by other witnesses. She had lied to both ACS and the Family Court referee with regard to her relationship with her ex-husband, a man who had been convicted of murder. She also had a violent criminal history of her own which made her less acceptable to be a custodial parent.
Father Honest and Forthright
Although the father had prepared a net worth statement which had a number of inaccuracies, the court found he was honest and forthright and credible with regard to his testimony. Justice DiDomenico ruled the father was the parent better suited to meet the everyday needs of the parties’ special needs child. This specifically referred to the child’s medical and educational needs. The court also noted the mother did not even accept, until fairly recently, the fact that her daughter had special needs. The mother was shown to be inflexible and failed to foster a relationship between the child and the child’s father. She was therefore “less fit” to be the residential custodial parent. The father was awarded sole legal and physical custody.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
