Chat Banner

Can We Help You?

Mother’s Relocation to Florida Denied

Mother's Relocation to Florida DeniedA mother had brought a Family Court case seeking to relocate to Florida. She wanted to bring her child with her to Florida. The father had opposed this application. The mother lost her application in the Family Court. She thereafter appealed the denial of allowing her to relocate to Florida.

The Appeals Court Decision

The Appeals Court also denied the mother’s request to relocate and affirmed the prior decision of the Family Court. The Appeals Court took note the record did not show the mother’s plan to relocate was a real plan. The record was insufficient to establish the child’s best interests would be served by allowing the mother and the parties’ child to move to Florida.

The Mother’s Circumstances

The mother was unemployed. She had no family members or extended family in Florida. There was no information as to her having a job in Florida, what town she wished to live in and where the child would go to school. The mother claimed the father would be able to visit the child in Florida. However, the father’s work schedule and personal life were likely to prevent him from having any significant contact with his child if the mother was able to move with the child to Florida. It was also unlikely the child would be able to come back to New York to spend substantial time visiting with the father.

The mother claimed her financial and economic situation would greatly improve if she relocated to Florida. However, she did not show even if she received economic benefit, the parties’ child would benefit from this relocation.

Conclusion

If one parent seeks to relocate and the relocation has a negative impact on the other parent, the relocating parent must present a very detailed case as to how the relocation will benefit the child of the parties.

schlissel-headshotElliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers in custody, relocation, visitation, support proceedings throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He can be reached for consultation at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Parental Alienation

Parental-Alienation

Parental alienation is inappropriate behavior by one parent whether it be the father or the mother which is designed to have a negative impact on the relationship between the children and the other parent. It can be considered a type of brainwashing. Parental Alienation is the manipulation of children by one parent for the purpose of preventing or destroying a warm and loving relationship the children have with the other parent. Parental alienation is harmful to the children. Parental alienation has been known to cause both emotional and psychological damage to children. The parent that is victimized loses his or her ability to maintain a relationship with the children through no fault of his or her own. In some cases allegations of sexual or physical abuse are part of the parental alienation scheme.

Parental Alienation Syndrome

A child subject to parental alienation often develop parental alienation syndrome and develop an intense dislike for one of their parents even though there is no logical reason for the child’s behavior to that parent. If you suspect the other parent is engaging in parental alienation, you should take immediate legal action to stop this inappropriate conduct. The longer the parental alienation continues on the more difficult it is to get the child back on the right track.

Custody Lawsuits and Parental Alienation

Parental alienation can be used as a method by a litigant in a custody case to have a negative impact on a parent’s ability to obtain custody of his or her children. If you suspect this is going on bring this to your attorney’s attention. This should be dealt with immediately to stop it from destroying one parent’s relationship with the children.

schlissel-headshot

If you are a victim of parental alienation or your children are being victimized, contact the law office of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. We have been helping parents throughout the Metropolitan New York area to deal with parental alienation for more than 3 decades. We can be reached at 800-344-6431 or you can e-mail us at: Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Father’s Request to Eliminate Child Support Denied

A father brought a proceeding in Queens County Family Court.  The case was assigned to Judge John Hunt.  The father requested his obligations to pay child support be terminated.  He claimed that the child had been constructively emancipated.  He further claimed the mother had been involved in parental interference that prevented him from maintaining a relationship with his daughter.

 

Litigation

The father and mother had been litigating various issues since 2007.  The father claimed he had no relationship with his daughter.  The mother testified she gave the father every opportunity to see his child but he never took any action to try to maintain a relationship with her.

 

The Judge’s Decision

Justice Hunt found the father had failed to meet his burden of proof showing there had been a change in circumstances sufficient to terminate his child support obligations.  Judge Hunt went on to find the father failed to establish the mother frustrated his relationship with his daughter.  He also found the child was not constructively emancipated.  The Judge’s decision instead found the father avoided his responsibility for his 18 year old daughter.  He made no efforts to form a relationship with her.  Judge Hunt found the father’s testimony to be fallacious and self-serving.  He also found if the father had waited an reasonable period of time which amounted to an inexcusable delay of 10 years in pursuing his remedies to submit these issue to the court.  The father’s application was dismissed.

 

Conclusion

Attorney Elliot SchlisselFathers seeking to terminate child support payments must make a detailed evidentiary presentation to courts.  Judges are very hesitant to eliminate child support payments without very strong evidentiary presentations.

 

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers on child support, visitation and custody matters for more than 4 decades.  He can be reached at Elliot@sdnylaw.com or 800-344-6437.

Wife Seeks Child Support

A wife had brought an application seeking child support about a year after the divorce case started.  The husband was a teacher.  He also owned a small construction company.  He made $152,000.00 in 2015.  During that same year the wife had earned $122,000.00.  In addition, the wife received substantial rental income from a variety of real estate interests she inherited from her family.

 

The Parties Separated

The parties separated in December 2013.  The father moved into the parties’ second home located in Sayville, Long Island.  She remained in their former marital residence.  The father had instead of paying the wife child support for the children, agreed to pay the Sayville property expenses.  In addition, he was paying medical and other insurance expenses included on both properties.  He contributed to the children’s expenses whenever wife requested as well as when the children were with him.

 

Child Support Denied

Justice Quinn sitting in Supreme Court in Suffolk County took note there were no allegations in wife’s submissions the children’s needs were not being met.  He further found the wife had substantial income above a teacher’s salary.  In addition, the husband’s health insurance covered all the parties’ medical expenses.  Justice Quinn found the children’s standard of living remained consistent.  Their financial and emotional needs were provided for.  He denied Elliot Schlisselthe wife’s application for child support.

 

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 3 decades. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Father Obtains Court Order Reducing His Child Support

Father Holding Child

A father brought a child support modification proceeding. A hearing was brought before a support magistrate and the father’s child support obligations were modified to $283.00 per week. The father objected to this finding and appealed the decision to a Family Court Judge. The father asked that his child support be reduced from $283.00 a week to $167.87 per week.

The Support Magistrate is Overruled

Judge Stephen Aronson sitting in the Family Court part in Ontario County New York agreed with the father. Judge Aronson ruled that the father’s prior modification petition was denied on the basis that his income reduction was self-imposed. Judge Aronson found although the father earned $50,000.00 in 2013, this was the exception to the rule. Judge Aronson also found the father did not voluntarily quit his job. Unfortunately, he was laid off because there was no longer a need for his position by his employer. Judge Aronson therefor overruled the support obligation to $166.77 per week.

Conclusion

In the Family Court in the State of New York, Support Magistrates deal with issues involving child support. Often Support Magistrates are very busy and have limited amounts of time to conduct hearings with regard to the appropriate amount of child support. This can result in incorrect calculations as to what a father’s financial obligations for child support are. In these situations, a type of appeal called “Objections to the Support Magistrate’s ruling” can be filed. In this case, when the Objections were filed, the Family Court judge carefully reviewed the situation and determined the father’s child support obligation was incorrectly calculated and therefore they were reduced.

Attorney Elliot Schlissel

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. Elliot and his associates have more than 100 years of combined experience representing fathers in child support and child custody legal cases.

Video Blog: Father Challenges Decision Imputing Income to Him

Father’s Challenge to Imputed Income Granted

Father holding child

In a case before Judge Machelle Sweeting sitting in the Family Court of New York County, a father brought objections (an appeal) to a support magistrate’s finding he had imputed income. The father challenged the support magistrate’s decision. The mother had a petition for an upward modification of child support. At the time the petition was filed the father was unemployed. However the support magistrate found he had voluntarily left his position. The court therefore imputed the income to him that he would have received had he not left his job. The father sought to present testimony he did not voluntarily leave his job. However he was not allowed to present this testimony with regard to how he came to be unemployed.

The Family Court Judge’s Decision

Family Court Judge Machelle Sweeting found that there was no evidence submitted before the support magistrate that the father had taken action to intentionally reduce his earnings by leaving his job. Judge Sweeting found there must be a factual basis on the record for imputing income to a father. She stated there must be a determination made that the parent intentionally reduced earnings for the purpose of avoiding child support obligations. She held this can be imputed based on a litigant’s employment history and/or educational background. She found in this case a hearing would need to be held as to whether the father intentionally reduced his earnings and for recalculation, should it be reasonable based on the outcome of this hearing.

Conclusion

Attorney Elliot Schlissel

If you appear before a Support Magistrate and receive an unfair or incorrect decision your remedy is to bring an appeal.

Court Refuses to Deviate From Child Support Standards Act Requirement

Court Refuses to Deviate From Child Support Standards Act Requirement

A mother had filed a petition for child support. On the basis of this filing a hearing was held before a support magistrate. The magistrate initially found the father’s bi-weekly child support obligations under the Child Support Standards Act was $396.00. It was then reduced by the support magistrate to $270.00 bi-weekly. The support magistrate rendered a decision which stated that applying the Child Support Standards Act was not appropriate in this case. The basis of the magistrate’s decision was that the child spent between 35% and 40% of the time with their father. The support magistrate felt that this constituted significant time sufficient to justify a deviation from the Child Support Standards Act.

Mother Files Objection (appealed) Support Magistrate’s Decision

The mother in her appeal argued there was a significant difference between the parties’ financial resources. The Family Court Judge reviewing this matter agreed with the mother’s arguments. The Family Court Judge made new findings requiring the father to make child support payments of $436.00 bi-weekly. The Family Court Judge stated in his custody cases the amount of time a child spends with the non-custodial parent should not be the driving force for a deviation with regard to the child support payments. The court held in absence of compelling factors, a deviation in child support from the presumably correct amount was not warranted in this case.

Conclusion

Attorney Elliot Schlissel

In most shared custody or joint custody cases the non-residential custodial parent has to pay the full amount of child support to the custodial parent. This is true even if each of the parties spend similar amounts of time with the child or children. The father should be careful when negotiating these agreements. However, in shared custody cases if a court is unsure of who should be paying child support to the other parent the courts will generally force the parent who has greater income resources to pay child support to the other parent.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for almost more than 35 years.

FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS DECREASED

Man walking on beach while holding his son

An appeals court in Manhattan has recently reduced a child support award against the father. The appeals court, in its decision stated that the lawyer/father was not required to pay for private school “up to the cost of Trinity School in New York City,” as had been previously ordered by a trial court.

THE APPEALS COURT

The Appellate Division in it’s decision stated that the trial court “did not follow the precise requirements of the New York Child Support Standards Act by ordering Michael Devereaux to pay for the cost of private school education as well as “extracurricular activities, summer school, and weekend activities.” The Appellate Court found there was insufficient support in the record for payment.”

The appellate Court found although Mr. Devereaux stated his intention to give his child “the best of everything” when living with his wife, this was not a basis for an award above the basic child support amount. The appellate court went on to state: “there is no record that the child has any special needs or gifts” which would be the basis of Devereaux paying above the standard child support amount. The Court also stated that tuition at a private school such as Trinity could cost as much as $45,000 a year.

New York father's rights lawyer Elliot Schlissel

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers with regard to custody, support and visitation matters throughout the metropolitan New York area.