Orders of Protection

Neglect Finding Against Mother

December 30, 2019 By Elliot S. Schlissel

In a case in the Family Court before Judge Michael Milsap sitting in the Bronx County ACS had filed a petition against the mother. The petition claimed the children were neglected by the mother. The petition alleged that the children were neglected because the mother allowed the children to be present when a significant other engaged in domestic violence against her.

Order of Protection Issued

The mother had an order of protection requiring John to stay away. The mother denied knowledge of prior incidents of alleged domestic violence against her. In addition, the mother denied knowledge that she had an order of protection against John.

Flawed Parental Judgment

The court ruled that the mother showed “flawed parental judgment”. She allowed John to contact her with the children present. The court entered a neglect finding against her with regard to inadequate supervision and guardianship. The Judge found that by allowing the children to be exposed to domestic violence in spite of the existence of an order of protection was the basis for his finding against her.

Conclusion

When there is an order of protection against a third party the parents of children have an obligation to enforce the order of protection. If they don’t and that individual had been engaged in domestic violence acts, the parent who is the victim of domestic violence can be found to be neglectful of their children. In this case ACS was successful in proving the mother neglected her children.

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is an attorney who represents clients in ACS and CPS matters throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He can be contacted for a free consultation at 800-344-6431 or by e-mail at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Family Law, Orders of Protection Tagged With: Flawed Parental Judgment

No Order of Protection Against Former Boyfriend

January 16, 2019 By Elliot S. Schlissel

Maliha 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her application for an order of protection but at a later point she denied to the court that she wanted the petition withdrawn.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.

Elliot 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.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights, Orders of Protection Tagged With: Orders of Protection

Husband’s Contact with Wife’s Attorney Not a Violation of Order of Protection Received by Wife

June 6, 2018 By Elliot S. Schlissel

Judge Javier Vargas sitting in a Family Court in King County recently had an unusual case presented to him. The wife had received an Order of Protection against her husband. He was ordered to stay away from the wife’s home and work and prohibited from communicating with wife, including any third party contact. The wife alleged husband and his private investigator had violated the portion of the Order of Protection preventing third party contact. She claimed her husband and his private investigator had communicated with her attorney through e-mail. She claimed these e-mails constituted harassment and coercion which were violations of the no communications provision of the Order of Protection which she had.

The Husband’s Position

The husband’s attorney argued that there were no allegations that either he or his investigator contacted the wife.

The Judge’s Decision

Judge Vargas took note that even presuming the allegations made by the wife in her petition were true and correct, the husband’s contact communicating with the wife’s counsel did not amount to threats or intimidation against the wife. He found there was no basis to find this conduct by the husband’s attorney constituted harassment or a family offense against the wife. He further found the husband’s attorney and the husband’s investigator were not third parties who were prohibited from communicating pursuant to the court order. Judge Vargas ruled the husband’s communications amounted to “hard edge bargaining negotiations and were not violations of the Order of Protection“.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He can be reached for a free consultation at 800-344-6431 or Elliot@sdnylaw.com.