Father Granted Downward Modification Of Child Support

Father Granted Downward Modification Of Child SupportIn the case before support Magistrate Sandra Mendelson-Toscano, sitting in the Family Court of Nassau County, a father filed a downward modification of child support petition asking that his child support obligations be reduced. The parties had previously been divorced and there were two children of the marriage. Upon receiving the downward modification child support petition, the mother filed an enforcement action against the father. She alleged he failed to pay child support payments in a timely manner.

THE TRIAL AND THE COURT’S DECISION

There was a joint trial held before Support Magistrate Mendelson-Toscano. She ruled since the father’s income had decreased by more than 15% since the previous child support order had been made, he was entitled to a downward modification of his child support payments. She thereafter entered a decision modifying his support obligations retroactive to the date he brought his child support downward modification case. In addition, the support magistrate ruled the father was entitled to credit for child support payments he made and a dollar for dollar credit for room and board payments he made while his son was attending college.

However, even though the father’s child support payments were reduced and he received some credits, the Support Magistrate found he still owed child support arrears to the mother. Therefore, Support Magistrate entered a non-willful finding ordering the father to pay mother’s attorney’s fees since he had failed to comply with the condition precedent as set forth in the prior child support order.

CONCLUSION

In this case the father won on some issues but was still forced to pay the mother’s attorney’s fees.

p>schlissel-headshotElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a divorce lawyer representing men and women throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He can be reached at Elliot@sdnylaw.com or 800-344-6431.

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving 2021

This Thanksgiving, we are immensely grateful, that with all the changes in our world, we have friends and family with whom we can gather. Let us take time this year to live in gratitude for the bounty we experience all around us.

Mother’s Relocation Denied; Fathers Granted Custody

Mother’s Relocation Denied; Fathers Granted CustodyIn this case a Mother appealed from an Order granting Father’s application to change a prior custody order. The Mother and Father has joint legal custody of the parties child. Mother was the primary residential custodial parent. Father had parenting time with the child.

Mother Seeks to Relocate

Mother brought an application to relocate with the child. She sought to move to West Virginia. She claimed her new husband lived there. Father brought a cross petition requesting he be named as the primary residential custodial parent of the parties child. The Family Court denied Mother’s relocation application. They also granted Father’s request for primary physical custody. The Family Court found the Mother gave little attention to the impact the relocation of the child would have on the child’s relationship with her Father. The court also found there was no evidence supporting her claim the relocation of the child to West Virginia was based on an improved financial circumstance that would exist in West Virginia.

The Appeals Court Decision

The Appeals Court in their decision stated the Family Court’s findings were supported by a sound and substantial basis on the record. The determination by the Family Court judge denying Mothers request to relocate with the child was affirmed. The Appellate Court found the Father could financially support himself and the child. The Court found he maintained a suitable residence to live in with the child. The Court took into consideration the Mother was financially dependant on her present husband. They also noted Mother had previously relocated. The Appeals Court held the Family Court did not make a mistake in awarding the Father primary residential custody of the parties child.

Conclusion

In this case, both the Judge in the Family Court and the Appeals Court agreed the Father was the proper parent to have primary physical custody of the parties child. This case is a good example of a Father asserting his equal rights to have custody of his child.

schlissel-headshotElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. has been helping fathers obtain custody of their children for decades.

Father Given More Time With The Children

Father Given More Time With The ChildrenIn a case before Judge Jeffrey Sunshine, who sits in Kings County New York, a father brought an application to modify a parenting time agreement. There were two teenage children of this marriage. The parties had joint custody of these children. One child was 13 years old and the other was 17 years old.

Fathers Economically Superior Situation

In this case the Father had a significantly better economic situation. The children desired to spend more time with their father than with there mother. As a result of this Judge Jeffrey Sunshine granted the father’s petition to have residential parenting time changed to two weeks in a row with him and one week with the mother.

The fathers work situation had changed and he was able to spend more time with the children. The father had also remarried. The children had developed a close relationship with his new spouse. The children also appreciated their father was able to provide them with a large home, a pool and resources which allowed them to have pleasant vacations.

The court also found the father and mother who had joint custody had no relationship whatsoever. Therefore they could not continue to have joint custody of the children.

Conclusion

This is an excellent decision with regard to the issue of fathers rights.

schlissel-headshotElliot S. Schlissel is a fathers rights lawyer who has been helping fathers obtain custody

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween

Season’s Greetings and Happy New Year

Season's Greetings and Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2020

Happy New Year 2020

To a joyful present and a well-remembered past. Best wishes for happy holidays and a magnificent new year.

No Order of Protection Against Former Boyfriend

Against Former BoyfriendMaliha A. brought a proceeding in the Family Court of Queens County before Judge John Hunt seeking an order of protection against her former boyfriend Onu M. Her petition claimed she had a bitter breakup and Onu was harassing her. Onu and Maliha had entered into new romantic relationships. Malihu had told a court attorney she was not afraid of Onu. At one point she sought to withdraw her application for an order of protection but at a later point she denied to the court that she wanted the petition withdrawn.

The Case Goes to Trial

Maliha stated she wanted to move forward with the petition and the case was eventually set down for trial. Maliha had posted a number of tweets on a twitter and even though she did not mention Onu’s name these tweets were about him. Onu had texted their agreement not to communicate with Malihu. Malihu testified that she was never threatened by Onu and she was not afraid of him, but she still wanted an order of protection because “as there is no telling what he might say or do.”

Application Dismissed

Judge Hunt dismissed Maliha’s petition. It failed to meet the statutory burden rising to a level of a family offense.

Conclusion

If an application is made to a court for an order of protection there must be a basis in law and the facts must substantiate the basis in law for a judge to grant this type of petition.

schlissel-headshotElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

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.

Mother’s Parental Access Suspended

Mother’s-ParentalActing Supreme Court Justice Stacey Bennett sitting in Nassau County had a case before her in 2013 where a father filed an emergency proceeding seeking to suspend a mother’s parental access. In addition, he sought to suspend all communication and contact with their daughter of every type and nature. Judge Bennett had granted the father a temporary order suspending the mother’s parenting access. A hearing was scheduled.

The Mother’s Argument

The mother argued her retweeting a photograph of her daughter did not violate the court order. She also claimed the use of hash tags in electronic media was not communication and also did not violate a court order. An extensive hearing took place.

The Judge’s Decision

Judge Bennett granted the father’s motion to suspend the mother’s parental access to the daughter of any type or kind. This also included telephone contact, skype, e-mail and all social medial contact. The mother requested she be given supervised visitation. Judge Bennett denied this also. She referred to testimony from mental health professionals. She found the mother suffered from a serious personality disorder with severe and maladaptive histrionic borderline narcistic and anti-social features. Judge Bennett’s decision stated the mother histrionic actions were found in her uncontrollable need for attention.

schlissel-headshotElliot S. Schissel, Esq. Is the managing partner of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. The firm represents clients in divorce and family law cases throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or by e-mail at Elliot@sdnylaw.com