To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel has been representing fathers for more than 45 years in all aspects of family law and divorce law. He and his associates are available for consultation. To schedule a consultation, please call 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or send an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
In a proceeding before Judge Ann O’Shea sitting in the Family Court of Kings County, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) brought a neglect proceeding against a father. They alleged the father R.S. had neglected his daughter by committing acts of domestic violence against the child’s mother. They also claim the father had violated an existing Order of Protection which had been taken out by the mother against him. During the course of this proceeding the father was granted temporary visitation. This visitation allowed him to visit with the child for eight hours on Saturdays while being supervised by his mother, the child’s grandmother.
The father has now brought a further application to the Family Court asking that his visitation be extended to supervised overnight visitation.
The attorney for the child’s mother has alleged that she opposed the father having further visitation with the child. She was not comfortable with the idea of further overnight visitation. This was in spite of the fact that ACS consented to the further supervised overnight visits by the father from Friday evenings through Saturday.
The court took into consideration that the visitation with the father was going well. The mother argued the child was not comfortable with this further expansion of the visitation and therefore the father’s visitation should not be expanded to overnights.
Judge O’Shea found the expansion of the father’s visitation was consistent with the policy of the Family Court Act and ACS guidelines for determining the appropriate level of supervision regarding family visits. The court found the ACS guidelines allowed for overnight visitation and weekend visits between a parent and a child during the pendency of proceedings in the Family Court for neglect. The court further found the extension of the visitation by the father did not expose the child to negative risks concerning physical, mental or the emotional well being of the child. The court therefore granted the father’s petition extending his visitation.
Father’s Rights
Fathers have an important role to play in their children’s lives. Where a child has two loving, dedicated parents, the child’s life is enhanced. Granting the father, in this case, expanded visitation with his child was in the child’s best interest. Family Court judges should do everything in their power to promote father’s rights to have relationships with their children in all situations where it is shown that the father is having a positive impact on the children’s lives.
This case involves an appeal by a father seeking to set an Order aside which granted the maternal grandmother custody of the father’s child. The father’s appeal was denied. The grandmother was granted primary residential custody of the child.
The father and mother were not married. They resided together until the baby was six months old. At that time, the father was incarcerated. The mother resided with her mother, her child’s grandmother. There came a time when the mother was also incarcerated. During the time both parents were in jail, the grandmother dutifully raised the child.
Father Obtains Visitation When Released From Prison
When the father was released from prison he obtained visitation rights with his child. The father thereafter brought a proceeding seeking physical custody of the child. He claimed both he and the child’s mother had maintained a continuing relationship with the child.
Justice Elizabeth Garry wrote the decision for the Appellate Division for the Third Department (an appeals court). She found there were extraordinary circumstances involved in this case. The award of primary physical custody by the Family Court to the grandmother with joint custody to the child’s parents was affirmed. She stated in her decision that considering all of the testimony, the history of the circumstances of the parents and the child’s developmental needs, the grandparent was “uniquely qualified to oversee the child’s therapeutic regime…and the father does not understand or refuses to accept the severity of the child’s developmental delay.” It was therefore in the best interest of the child the grandmother be awarded primary physical custody of the child.
Conclusion
This decision is supported by the theory that the best interests of the child should be taken into consideration when the court grants custody. In this case the grandparent was the most suitable and appropriate residential parent. Grandparents play an exceedingly important role in the development of their grandchildren. In addition to this case being a victory for children’s rights, it is also a victory for grandparent’s rights.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years representing fathers in all aspects of divorce and family law. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years of experience representing fathers in custody proceedings. He and his associates handle all aspects of family law and divorce litigation. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
A mother had brought a proceeding in the Family Court requesting she be allowed to move with her children to Texas. The Family Court denied her application. She thereafter brought an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court. She claimed the Family Court had applied an incorrect standard in rejecting her request to relocate herself and the children to Texas. She claimed the Family Court’s decision denying her relocation application on the ground she failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant this relocation was not the appropriate standard to be used by the Family Court in this proceeding. At the time of the trial in the Family Court, the mother testified she wanted to relocate to benefit from the economic and emotional support she would receive in Texas from her father and other members of her family who resided there.
The children’s father opposed the mother’s relocation application. He took the position it was a detrimental move to his relationship with the children.
The Appeal’s Court denied the mother’s application to relocate. They found the decision made by the Family Court was correct. They stated although no change in circumstances must be established to support a relocation petition, the mother had failed to show the relocation of the parties’ children to the State of Texas would be in their best interests. The Appeal’s Court considered all of the relevant factors with regard to the relocation of the children. They took into consideration this relocation would have a negative impact on the children’s well established relationship with their father and his family who reside in New York.
Conclusion
Father’s relationships with their children are important. Appeal’s Courts should not approve relocations which will destroy or have a negative impact on the father’s relationship with the children unless there is sufficient evidence to show the children will benefit from this relocation.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney who litigates relocation cases.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years experience representing fathers in all aspects of divorce and custody litigation. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
When there are allegations of child abuse the level of evidence submitted by CPS workers and investigators can be minimal. The CPS system in New York is arbitrary, abusive, presumes child abuse or neglect in every case, and moves forward backed by the authority of New York State on incorrect interpretations of facts, and outright falsehoods. Guardians, parents and grandparents are sometimes overwhelmed when they find they have so little power and ability to contradict and counteract the actions of CPS personnel.
Individuals accused of child abuse find when they go into the Family Court and expect to be able to tell their story to a judge they are confronted by judges that don’t have the time and often don’t have the patience to listen to them. CPS spends four or five minutes making their presentation and the parent then gets about two or three minutes to rebut the presentation.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Orders of Protection are given to the children based on inaccurate statements by CPS workers. The parents, guardians and grandparents find they are guilty until proven innocent even if the allegations of child abuse or neglect are spurious, mistaken, inaccurate and untrue. Many months go by with Orders of Protection pending, and Child Protective Services workers regularly coming to the door, and the innocent family members often feel overwhelmed and shocked at how they are treated by the legal system. Many family members who are accused of child abuse come into my office and tell me they didn’t even get a chance to speak in court. The events took place without them even having the ability to say even one word. Unfortunately, this happens much too often.
CPS The Do-Gooders
There are dedicated people who work for CPS who rescue innocent children from abusive situations. These CPS workers deserve the public’s gratitude. Unfortunately, I see too many situations where CPS creates nightmares for families who are loving, good natured and provide wonderful homes and care for their children. Innocent family members are threatened that if they don’t cooperate with CPS their children will be removed from the home. I see situations on a regular basis where a child will get bruised while playing with his or her friends, go to the school nurse and not remember how the bruise came to be. The school nurse calls CPS and then CPS shows up in the middle of the night at the family’s home, insists on coming in, investigating the children, harassing the parents, and scaring them to death with an implied threat that they will lose their children.
I recommend to everyone who calls me on a CPS complaint to take it seriously and to make no statements to CPS workers without having an attorney present and not let them in their home. I make arrangements to meet with CPS workers either at my office or at their office for the purpose of reviewing the allegations against family members. I discuss with them in an intelligent manner, without intimidation, that they are going to remove children from the custody of their parents.
Conclusion
Should you hear from CPS about a potential complaint, don’t let yourself become a victim. They have no right to come into your home no matter what they say. Advise the CPS worker that you are happy to cooperate with them, but you wish to retain counsel and your attorney will call them to deal with the issue. If they tell you that you are not entitled to an attorney, they are lying to you! You have a right to an attorney at every stage of the legal system in New York and the rest of the United States. Do not be intimidated, do not let them in your home. If you want to speak to them, speak to them at the front door. They have no right to search your home or investigate your home.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years of experience representing fathers in custody litigation. He and his associates handle all aspects of family law and divorce litigation. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
This is a story about two young parents who had a daughter in 2003. Shortly after the daughter was born, the child’s mother agreed to have the maternal grandmother raise the child in Franklin County, New York. This gave the mother the opportunity to go away to college. While the mother was attending college, she visited her daughter sometimes on weekends, holidays, and on school vacations.
The child’s father had enlisted in the military before his daughter was born. He was twice deployed in Iraq. Due to his deployment overseas he rarely saw his daughter. When he was discharged from the military in 2007, the father worked out an arrangement with the maternal grandmother whereby he would have a regular visitation schedule with his daughter. During this period of time he was able to reestablish his relationship with her.
Family Court Custody Proceeding
When the mother returned to New York in 2011, the grandmother moved out of state. A proceeding was brought in the Family Court concerning the custody of the parties’ daughter. The Family Court awarded the parties’ joint legal custody, however the father was named as the residential custodial parent of his daughter. The mother was unhappy with the decision of the Family Court and she appealed to the Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court. The Appellate Division affirmed the prior order of the Family Court. The court took into consideration the mother waited more than 2 years before she sought custody of her daughter. They found this action of the mother was “the most discerning factor” concerning whether or not she should be given residential custody. The appeals court also found the mother did not reestablish herself back into her daughter’s life in Franklin County for the purpose of avoiding the relocation of the child.
Conclusion
Fathers who love their children and are willing to make sacrifices to reestablish relationships with their children can prevail and obtain residential custody.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
