Please view today’s video blog by clicking on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
Rights of the Stay at Home Father
September 19, 2014 By
Please view today’s blog video by clicking on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights advocate. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net
Custody Litigation
September 17, 2014 By
In custody litigation the court must determine which parent would be better at taking care of the best interests of the child or children. Best interests of the child or children involves which parent can provide a life situation where the child will thrive and grow emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and physically. The large majority of custody issues are resolved out of court in custody agreements between the parties. However a small number of custody matters require a judge to make a decision as to which parent would be better suited to being the residential custodial parent of the child.
Preparing for Custody Litigation
Each litigant in a custody case will seek to prove it is in the child’s best interest for the child to reside with them. In order to accomplish this goal, a litigant in a custody case should obtain documentation supporting his or her claims. This documentation should show the involvement of that parent in the child’s medical needs, school, work, after school activities, family and social events, and other issues which would lead a judge to believe that parent was the primary, caring individual involved with raising the child and promoting the child’s best interests. A parent seeking custody should show his or her residence provides appropriate accommodations for the child, is within a reasonable distance of the child’s school, and the living environment the child would be exposed to is conducive to raising a child. Photographs of the place the child will live, his room, the accommodations of the home should be available to present to the court.
Who The Child Seeks to Live With
In the State of New York, in custody battles, an attorney is appointed to represent the child. The attorney for the child is supposed to meet with the child and take into consideration the child’s desires as to who he or she would seek to live with. It is this author’s opinion the child’s position as to who should be the residential custodial parent should only be considered with mature children. Unfortunately, this is not the law in New York. I have had numerous cases where attorneys for a child have come into court and advised the court who the 4 or 5 year old they interviewed would seek to live with. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds often change their minds. Sometimes 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute span.
Support System
Parents seeking custody of a child should be able to make a presentation to the court who will be taking care of the child, supervising the child, and meeting the child’s needs 7 days a week. If the parent works, he or she must present to the court a support system which would nurture the child, protect the child, and properly supervise the child when that parent is unavailable due to employment or other reasons.
The More Available Parent
Some parents have employment situations which are more flexible than others. The parent with the more flexible position can make a presentation to the judge that he or she would be available to be there for the child during school programs, after school activities, and help with homework. Judges do take a parent’s availability to nurture a child into consideration when custody issues are presented to them.
Elliot Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer practicing law within the Metropolitan New York area for more than 35 years.
Guardianship of Child Granted to Father
September 15, 2014 By
Please watch today’s blog video at the following link:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net
Father Challenges Child Support Arrangement
September 12, 2014 By
Please view today’s blog video by clicking on the following link:
Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
Custody Change from Mother to Father: Court States This Was The Best Interest of the Child
September 10, 2014 By
Supreme Court Justice John Colangelo sitting in Westchester County recently changed custody from a mother to a father. A post judgment divorce action was initiated involving a 9 year old child.
History of the Case
The mother and father were divorced in 2009. In 2010, the mother had brought a Family Court proceeding for the purpose of modifying the parenting schedule which was initially set forth in the 2009 Family Court Order. The court at that time found the facts required a change in custody. The court found it was in the child’s best interest custody be changed from the mother to the father. The father was thereafter given full legal custody and final decision making. He was also designated as the primary custodial parent. The court found the mother was incapable of promoting a meaningful relationship between the child and his father.
The Actions of the Mother
While the mother had physical custody of the child she did everything in her power to prevent the father from having a relationship with his son. She tried to totally separate the two. The court found her responsibility was to encourage a healthy relationship between the father and son and she did the opposite. The court therefore changed custody.
Father Awarded Custody by Court
September 8, 2014 By
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net
Father Given Sole Custody Due To Mother’s Interference With His Visitation Rights
September 5, 2014 By
The Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court in Upstate New York, recently rendered a decision affirming changing custody from the mother to the father based on the mother’s interference with the father’s rights to visit with the parties’ child.
The parties had initially entered into an agreement whereby the mother was given an award of sole custody. In addition, she was given a one year stay away order of protection against the father.
Father Files Petitions
The father filed a violation petition and custody petition in the Family Court. He alleged the mother had been continually interfering with his parenting time with the parties’ child. There were hearings in the Family Court. The Family Court judge found the mother had not complied with the visitation provisions in the court’s custody orders. The Family Court ordered the custody changed from the mother to the father. The father was given sole custody of the parties’ child. The mother filed an appeal.
The Decision on Appeal
The Appeals Court unanimously affirmed the changing of the custody of the child from the mother to the father. The Appeals Court found the mother had frequently violated the terms and her obligations under the prior court orders requiring her to cooperate with regard to promoting the relationship between the father and child and by refusing to give him his parenting time with the child. Instead of complying with the court orders for long periods of time, the mother simply refused to give the father visitation with the child. The mother intentionally violated court orders on a regular basis.
The Appeals panel took into consideration the fact the mother’s fitness to care for the child had deteriorated. In the end, the appeals court found it was in the child’s best interest to give the father sole custody.
Wife Awarded 100% of Assets Due to Husband’s Failure to Produce Documents
September 4, 2014 By
Elliot S. Schlissel, Family Law Attorney 1-800-344-6431; or schlissel.law@att.net
Custody of Son Changed: Judge Finds Mother Cannot Be Trusted To Be the Custodial Parent of the Parties’ Son
August 29, 2014 By
Supreme Court Justice Colangelo sitting in Westchester County recently had an unusual case presented to him. In this case, the mother had paraded her son from one forensic psychologist to another. This was done in a concerted effort to destroy his relationship with this father. In addition, the mother had hired a former actress in soap operas and paid her $57,000 to help prepare her for her starring role as a witness in the custody case involving her son.
The Trial
There was a trial which lasted 18 months before Justice Colangelo. There were 25 days of testimony by the mother alone. Justice Colangelo found she was fixated on destroying the father’s relationship with the son and therefore “cannot be trusted” to make decisions regarding the parties’ son. Justice Colangelo in his decision went on to state “when left to her own devices she misused her decision making authority to trot a mentally healthy child to numerous psychological appointments clearly aimed to deprive him of a relationship with his father – a result that may have, and if allowed to recur certainly will rob [the boy] of his remaining childhood.” Justice Colangelo changed custody from the mother to the father in spite of the recommendations made by the court appointed psychologist and the attorney for the child.
Hired Forensic Psychologist
Justice Colangelo’s decision deals with the issue of parties’ to custody litigation hiring forensic psychologists to promote one parent’s arguments and with regard to the issue of trial consultants preparing witnesses with regard to their testimony. The judge found the mother was evasive during her two weeks of testimony.
Judge Colangelo indicated in his decision the mother had hired Daniel Lobel, a Westchester psychologist, and paid him $6,000 per day to prepare subjective, result oriented testimony. The judge also stated the mother had spent more than 50 hours with a psychologist, Jonathan Gould, who is a well known forensic evaluator, who helped prepare her for her interview with the court appointed forensic psychologist, Stephen Herman, from Manhattan. Justice Colangelo found the mother had met with numerous mental health professionals and a number of lawyers with regard to her desire to “deprive [the boy] of a meaningful relationship with his father.” The judge found “such a goal might have proven laudable had [the father] actually been the abusive monster [the mother] sought to depict.”
Father a Caring Man
Justice Colangelo went on to state there was no evidence presented at trial that the father was anything other than a caring, responsible man who recognized the need for both parents in the child’s life. Justice Colangelo found the mother’s behavior to be “inimicable” to the welfare of the child. The mother’s arguments that the child needed to be protected from his father were completely without merit.
Justice Colangelo in his decision went on to state “absent the imposition of some stringent boundaries on [the mother’s] prerogatives and conduct, based upon her actions to date, [the child] will surely spend the remainder of his childhood being prodded and probed by a constant parade of mental health professionals seeking to find something wrong with a healthy child who needs only a true, loving relationship with both parents.”
It should be noted the mother has appealed this decision.
