Protecting Men’s Rights in a Divorce

father's rights lawyerAlthough there are many issues that need to be dealt with in divorce situations, there are two basic themes. The first theme has to do with children, custody and visitation. The second theme has to do with division of assets, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony) and other financial issues.

Punished for Being Successful!?

Men who have worked hard to obtain an excellent education and/or credentials and have strived and dedicated themselves to both their family and their employment initiatives, should not be punished in a divorce situation.

Often men come into our law office with questions such as:

  1.   I have worked hard to develop my business, how can I keep it?
  2. How do I keep my career, provide for my children, and not become a deep pocket to fund my wife’s exorbitant lifestyle?

Planning and Strategy

Fighting a complicated divorce can be similar to fighting a mini war. If negotiations and settlement attempts fail, each side prepares for a battle. This battle is called a trial.

Our office helps our clients develop an effective strategy to preserve their assets, maintain relationships with their children, and not be devastated by the divorce process itself. Approximately 5% of all divorce cases in New York go to trial. The other 95% are settled either before trial or at trial. It therefore is necessary to prepare for trial while continuing to negotiate to obtain the best possible results.

Caring for a Child

A father’s love and devotion for his children is not second string to a mother’s love and devotion to her children. Under the law in the State of New York, both parents are considered to have equal ability to obtain custody of their children. Today, more and more fathers are stepping up to the plate saying “I want custody of my children.” Fathers are dedicating themselves to being in their children’s lives. The former standardized types of visitation that judges handed out in the past do not necessarily meet the father’s needs today.

The Best Interests of the Child

The standard in the State of New York as to who receives custody of the children is what is in the children’s best interest. Judges are forced to make these very difficult decisions. There is no standardized scale rating mothers and fathers for their talents involving child raising, emotional stability, and bonding with their children. There are standards within the statutes in the State of New York but they are general standards. In many situations, judges make decisions on who will receive custody based upon gut reactions that are thereafter qualified within the law.

Children deserve the love, dedication and financial support from both parents. In some cases, joint custody arrangements can be worked out and the parents can amicably raise their children. However, this is not true in all cases. In some cases, the children are going to live with one parent and the other parent is going to visit! If you are a father and seek being more than a visitor in your child’s life, then you need the best, most dedicated, most experienced father’s rights lawyers to protect your interest. At the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo our father’s rights attorneys have been delivering for our clients for more than 45 years.helping fathers and children

Unfair Prenuptial Agreement Thrown Out

family law attorneysE.N. entered into a prenuptial agreement with A.N.  E.N., a woman, had been a receptionist in a law firm that handled divorce cases. The prenuptial agreement was drafted by her husband’s lawyer. She had virtually no impact in the agreement. She hadn’t read the final draft of the agreement.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Victor Alfieri, Jr., sitting in Rockland County, held “the agreement was completely one-sided.” “Plaintiff thought the purpose of the prenuptial agreement was to protect defendants’ individual and joint bank accounts. There was never any discussion between the two of them about plaintiff waiving her rights to spousal maintenance, insurance benefits, his pension or his estate should he predecease her.” The Judge went further to state “plaintiff did not see a copy of the agreement prior to signing it, nor did defendant’s attorney explain it to her prior to her signing it.”

History of Relationship

A.N and E.N met in 1994. Their engagement lasted 2 years. A.N. insisted on a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married to E.N. E.N. thought the agreement just would deal with waiving her rights to A.N.’s bank accounts which he held jointly with his mother.

A.N. had his attorney draft the prenuptial agreement. Although E.N. agreed to sign the agreement without reading it based on A.N.’s statements he would not marry her unless she signed the agreement.

Divorce Proceedings

A.N. filed a lawsuit against E.N.  E.N. brought an action to set aside the prenuptial agreement. The Judge found that E.N. had “no input” in the prenuptial agreement’s terms. The Judge also pointed out in his decision she was not represented by counsel during the negotiations and the execution of the agreement. In the end, the Judge found, based on all the facts in the case, the prenuptial agreement should be set aside because it was unconscionable, involved over-reaching and duress.

Conclusion

Both parties should always be represented by a family law attorney prior to entering into a prenuptial agreement. There should also be full disclosure of assets, debts and a full explanation of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the attorneys for each of the parties prior to their executing the agreement.father's rights advocate

Online Relationship No Basis For Order Of Protection

father's rights order of protectionJudge Heppner, who sits in Brooklyn Family Court, recently ruled an online relationship which ended in a contentious business relationship was not sufficient to meet the standard of an “intimate relationship” requiring the issuance of an Order of Protection by the Family Court in New York. Judge Heppner found the case law establishing an intimate relationship in New York could not be met by a casual online relationship. Judge Heppner found there was not a basis for granting an Order of Protection.

The Relationship

The parties met online and exchanged emails over a period of several months. Shannon and Michael had numerous conversations involving a variety of subjects including Michael’s carpentry skills. Shannon had asked Michael to make several small repairs at her residence. Shannon eventually filed a Family Offense Petition requesting an Order of Protection.

New York Family Court Act section 8.12(e) states “Family offenses which give rise to Orders of Protection can be applied to persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time.” Judge Heppner found the internet communication between Shannon and Michael rendered them “casual acquaintances” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business social context” did not give rise to a relationship envisioned by the legislature related to Orders of Protection in the Family Court.”

Judge Heppner kept the temporary Order of Protection in place for two weeks at the end of the case. She took this action to give Shannon an opportunity to go to the District Attorney’s office for the purpose of pursuing a criminal action against Michael. It should be noted when the Family Court lacks jurisdiction because the parties are not related or they do not have an intimate relationship between them, an individual can still go to the District Attorney’s office and request criminal charges be brought against the other individual and an Order of Protection be granted by the Criminal Court related to these criminal charges.father's rights help

Stay At Home Fathers

father's rights attorneyMillions of fathers are involved in raising their children. Fathers who dedicate their lives to help raising their children should be recognized more often for these endeavors by the courts in New York. Research shows in approximately 25% of all marriages, the mother is the primary bread winner.

As women have become more ambitious in fulfilling their careers more issues concerning father’s rights have developed. Many fathers feel they are not given sufficient parenting time with their children. Some conservatives in the United States argue against the concept of the nurturing father. They claim nurturing fathers act as substitute mothers and this denies children a masculine role model. I believe this is a lot of hogwash!

Equal Rights For Fathers

Feminists in the 70’s wanted equal rights for mothers. In the State of New York, since 1989, mothers have equal rights. When mother’s obtained equal rights, fathers also received equal rights.

Two Sided Feminist Arguments

Feminists today agree that men should be more involved in raising their children. However today’s feminists only want fathers to be treated equally when it is convenient for them.

Traditional Role

In the traditional family, the father goes out to work and the mother stays home and raises the children. The majority of families in the United States raise their children in this manner. However, this majority is getting smaller and smaller. The time for father’s rights is now!

Facts About The Author

advocate for fathersElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers throughout the metropolitan New York area.

New York Court Returns Child To Singapore

father's rights lawyerIn an international custody dispute, the US Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit (a Federal appeals court) ordered a 4 year old boy returned to Singapore with his father. The Court took this action despite allegations from the child’s mother the move would put him at “grave risk” of domestic violence.

There was a court order from a court in Singapore which prevented Lee Jen Far from removing her son Shayan from the country. In spite of this, she took her son from Singapore to New York. She claimed the boy would witness physical and verbal abuse against her from the child’s father Abdoloah Nagash Souragatar. She also claimed the boy would also be subject to child abuse. She alleged the father could take the boy to Iran or bring action to seek custody in Islamic courts in Singapore that favored men.

Appeals Court Holds Against Mother

The Appeals Court found “after carefully reviewing the record, Far’s arguments are permeated with conjecture and speculation.” The Appeals Court decision ordered the boy be repatriated under the Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction.

Marital History

Lee and Souragatar were married in 2008. Shayan was born in 2009. The marriage was described as “stormy”. Lee claimed she was physically abused in front of her son. Lee brought a proceeding in Singapore Civil Court for sole custody. The father, Souragatar, filed a cross petition for sole custody. The civil court in Singapore ordered that neither parent should remove Shayan from Singapore without the other parents’ consent.

helping fathers with custodyThe father and mother agreed to resolve the custody issue in Singapore’s Sharia courts. In violation of the Court’s order, Lee took Shayan to Dutchess County, New York to live with a family member. Souragatar initially had difficulty locating his wife and son. When he did, he brought a proceeding in Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York under the Hague Convention claiming the child needed to be returned to Singapore. The Federal Appeals Court agreed with his arguments.

Grandparents’ Rights

Grandparents have a unique impact on their grandchildren. Children visit with their grandparents. They receive love affection and ties to family relationships from their grandparents. The nurturing relationships grandparents and grandchildren have, provide an additional sense of stability for children that cannot be obtained from other relationships. In cases where grandchildren are the product of homes in turmoil, grandparents are a precious support system for their grandchildren.

Grandparents And Visitation

The issues involving grandparents’ relationships with their grandchildren and how the courts interpret grandparents’ rights to visitation with their grandchildren are based on the concept of what is in the children’s best interest. Should grandparents be deprived of their visitation rights, they have the burden of proving in the Family Court, in the State of New York, it would be in the children’s best interest to maintain a relationship and spend time with the grandparents.

Each case involving visitation rights for grandparents’ is unique. Grandparents who seek to build loving relationships with their grandchildren and have had a past history of visitation and contact with their grandchildren have a greater opportunity to succeed in grandparents’ visitation proceedings.

Prior to bringing a proceeding in the Family Court, the grandparents should lay out a history of contact with their grandchildren to establish periods of prior visitation, gift giving on birthdays and holidays, and other reasonable steps showing they have tried to maintain a relationship with their grandchildren that has been interfered with by either one or both of the children’s parents.

Grandparents Don’t Exist Forever

Grandparents don’t exist forever. They often die as the children grow up. Children should be entitled to at least their memories of a loving relationship they maintained with their grandparents.

About The Author

help for fathers and grandparents rightsElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. has been defending grandparent’s rights for more than 45 years. His law firm also represents fathers in father’s rights cases involving custody and visitation issues.

Man Shaves His Body To Avoid Hair Follicle Test

father's rights attorneyRobert DePaz, Jr. was ordered to take a hair follicle test to determine if he had been using illegal drugs, by Judge Julianne Eisman, sitting in the Family Court of Nassau County. At the time Judge Eisman ordered the test, the lawyers for the children’s mother requested Judge Eisman to direct DePaz “not to cut his hair again until a hair follicle test is done.” Judge Eisman stated the tester “would find a hair on his body, wherever it is, and have it tested.”
DePaz shaved his entire body prior to appearing for the hair follicle test. The tester was unable to conduct the test because he had no hairs on his body.

Judge Finds DePaz In Contempt

Upon appearing before Judge Eisman, DePaz was found in contempt. She ordered him incarcerated for 90 days. Mr. DePaz’ attorney appealed to the Appellate Division (an Appeals Court).

The Appellate Court held since Judge Eisman did not order DePaz to refrain from shaving his body, her ruling to incarcerate him was overturned. The Appellate Court, in its decision stated “contrary to the Family Courts determination, its statement in open court…that the individual designated to perform the hair follicle test ‘would find hair on the father’s body wherever it is and have it tested’ does not qualify as a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate which is necessary to support a finding of contempt.”

Mr. DePaz’ lawyer stated “if you are going to tell an individual to do something, you have to spell it out” especially if you are a Judge!

About The Author

legal assistance for dadsElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers concerning visitation and custody issues, divorces and other family legal related matters.

Wealthy Father Doesn’t Have To Pay Child Support

father's rights attorneyIn a recent decision an Appellate Court in New York State held a father who has custody of his son during the majority of the year has no obligation to pay child support to the child’s mother even though the father has in excess of $20 million in assets and the mother had no income!

In the case of Rubin vs. Della Salla 350047/09, the Appellate Division (an appeals court) of the First Department held Anthony Della Salla who has custody of his son 56% of the year is the child’s custodial parent. Since he was the child’s custodial parent, he cannot be ordered to pay child support even though the mother is penniless and he has $20 million in assets.

History Of The Case

The couple was never married. The child was born in 2003. The couple broke up in 2007. The boy lived with his father most of the time. During the 2008-2009 calendar year, the parties reached an agreement wherein Della Salla took the boy to school most school days and had custody of him most weekends and holidays.

In the year 2009, Ms. Rubin filed an action against Della Salla seeking sole custody and requesting he pay child support. Rubin had been unemployed since 2001 and had no income. Della Salla had voluntarily been providing her with money. However, he reduced the amount of money he had been giving her in 2008 to force her to obtain employment.

Initial Pendent Lite Support Order

Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer had originally granted the application brought on by an application for Pendente Lite Child Support (temporary child support motion). She ordered Della Salla to pay $5,000 a month in child support. He had complied with this order.

A trial was held and Judge Gesmer awarded Della Salla residential custody of the child during the school year with Rubin having custody on alternate weekends and Thursday nights. Rubin also had legal custody concerning educational and medical decisions. In the summer, the schedule was reversed. Della Salla would have custody on Thursday nights and alternate weekends and Rubin would have custody the rest of the time. All vacations were evenly split.

Della Salla made an application to the court to dismiss Rubin’s claim for child support. He argued if he was the custodial parent he could not be compelled to pay child support. Justice Gesmer denied the motion. Both of the parties appealed. The Appellate Division in the First Department affirmed the custody finding. They found Judge Gesmer was mistaken in granting Della Salla’s application for child support. Since the son spent 56% of his time with his father and 44% of his time with his mother, the father was the de facto custodial parent. The court stated under the CSSA’s (Child Support Standards Act) plain language, “only the non-custodial parent can be directed to pay child support.”

Victory For Father’s Rights

The Appellate court made the right decision. Child support should only be paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. In this case, the mother sought to punish the father for his success. The purposes of child support is not to subsidize a mother’s life. Child support should only be used to help support the child while he or she is living with the custodial parent. This case is a significant victory for father’s rights.advocates for fathers

Interstate Child Support Laws

fathers rights lawyersMany questions arise when parents live in different states and one parent has to pay child support. There is a statute called the Interstate Family Support Act. The purpose of this statute is to simplify the laws impacting on child support payments made by a parent living in one state to a parent living in another state.

The Interstate Family Support Act is designed to let courts in different states work with each other concerning issues involving child support. Prior to the enactment of this statute, courts in different states could order different child support payments which created a great deal of confusion.

Handling Interstate Child Support Issues

Pursuant to this law, if the state the child and the custodial parent reside in issues an order concerning child support, another state cannot change the order. Another state can only modify a prior states’ child support orders if neither of the parents or the child live in the original issuing state or where both parents now live in another state and the child support application is brought in that state. The passing of the Interstate Family Support Act was a watershed moment for family law attorneys. It brought order to a system that had previously been chaotic for parents of children living in different states.

About The Author

advocate for father's rights and child custody Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years of experience. Elliot and his staff of attorneys aggressively litigate issues concerning child support, spousal maintenance, custody and visitation issues.

Custody Case Appealed

father's rights attorneysThe Appellate Division of the Second Department, an appeal’s court, is currently entertaining an appeal on an unusual custody case. The lower court Judge in the Family Court, rendered a decision awarding residential custody to the mother. However, the court also granted decision making authority to the father.  An appeal ensued.  The attorney for the father claimed this arrangement cannot work. However the mother claimed she is prepared to try to allow the arrangement to work.  An attorney for the child asked the appellate court to leave the decision as is.
The mother in this case is a real estate developer. The father is an assistant district attorney in Kings County. He also serves as a Fordham University School of Law adjunct professor and a legal commentator for a television station.

Divorced In 2005

The parties were divorced in 2005. They originally had joint custody and joint decision making authority. The mother, Ann Marie McEvoy, was the primary residential custodial parent. Ms. McEvoy felt her son had autistic tendencies and needed special care. Hannigan, the father, disagreed. Thereafter custody litigation started. The case languished in the court’s for years.

Both the mother and the father have appealed this case. Both the mother and the father in oral argument claimed their son’s best interest would be met if each of them had custody. Both the mother and the father made the same best interest argument to the appellate court. The mother claimed her son Chad would be better off with her because she provided “a warm nurturing environment.”

The father’s attorney claimed he had a “loving relationship with his son” and offered him “a safe, secure and healthy environment.” The father also claimed the son “thrived and flourished academically and socially when in his care.” He also claimed the mother tried to alienate the boy from him. The father claimed he was the only parent who would allow a relationship to exist with both parents.

Child’s Preference In Custody

The attorney for the father argued the “wishes of the 10, 11 or 12 year old child is not what the court is mandated to follow.”  She claimed the attorney for the child had not “accurately and fairly” represented the child because she immediately “adopted his position” before knowing the circumstances and facts involved in the case.

The attorney for the child claimed the child had a mind of his own. The attorney for the father claimed the court was “troubled because the decision was internally inconsistent and hoped that the appeals court would overrule this decision.” Stay tuned for the Court’s decision which will be published in this blog when rendered by the Appeals Court.child custody assistance for fathers