Child’s Surname Changed to That of His Father

July 7, 2015 By

child custody attorney on Long IslandIn a case before Supreme Court Justice Eugene Faughnan from Madison County, New York, a father sought to change the last name of his son. The father claimed he had had custody of his son since the boy was three months old. The mother only had eight hours of supervised visitation each week. Justice Faughnan found the father’s requested name change would promote the child’s best interests. In addition, Justice Faughnan found the mother had failed to come forward with any sustainable objection to the father’s request to change his son’s last name to his.

The Name Change Was In The Child’s Best Interest

Justice Faughnan held the sharing of a surname by a child and his father he lived with was a legitimate issue. He found that it minimized “embarrassment, harassment and confusion in school and social context.” The judge in his decision found the father obtained custody of the child shortly after birth. The mother only had supervised visitation because of her prior misconduct. In addition, Judge Faughnan found the mother had never provided the child with any financial support. The court therefore was satisfied the father had met his burden of proof for the proposed name change and that this name change would be in the child’s best interest.

father's rights lawyer in New YorkElliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. He represents fathers on custody, paternity, visitation (parenting time) cases in both the Supreme Court during divorce proceedings, and in the Family Courts. He practices law throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Father Given Custody of Special Needs Child

July 2, 2015 By

child custody attorney for fathersA father, J.M., sought custody of his special needs child who had autism. He claimed the child should remain with him because he had been a primary caretaker since January 2012. The wife cross-moved for custody. She claimed the husband was unfit and sought custody of G.M. She denied various family offense charges which had been brought against her and that she used illegal drugs.

The Divorce Case

Justice Catherine DiDomenico sitting in the Supreme Court in Richmond County was assigned to handle this divorce case. After reading the facts and circumstances of the case she found joint custody was not an appropriate option. She held the relationship between the father and mother was both acrimonious and volatile. In her decision, she found the child’s teacher had stated G.M. had thrived while she was temporarily in the father’s custody. In addition, a forensic evaluator who investigated the circumstances and events of the relationship between the mother, the father and G.M. recommended the father should have physical custody and the mother should be granted parenting time.

Mother Failed To Abide By Court Orders

In addition, the court found the mother refused to follow court orders. She further found the mother disrespected authority and had issues over a long period of time concerning prescription drugs and illegal drug usage. The judge found based on these circumstances and the fact that there was domestic violence between the father and the mother, the father was the more suitable custodial parent for G.M. Her decision stated in this case there were “two imperfect parents.” She found both of them used marijuana on a regular basis. She found the father had tested negatively for marijuana use for a longer period of time than the wife. She also found the father was better suited to create a relationship between the mother and the child if he was given custody. She therefore entered a decision awarding the father sole legal and physical custody.

father's rights attorneyElliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He has been helping fathers obtain custody of their children for more than 45 years.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Uncle Found Not Guilty For Endangering Child’s Welfare

June 13, 2015 By

Ibrahim was charged in Bronx County Criminal Court with endangering the welfare of a child. The child in question was his nephew. His attorney moved for dismissal of the charges against him because they were facially insufficient.

Informant Reported The Incident To The Police

An informant had seen a small child seated on the first floor fire escape and there were no adults supervising the child. The informant looked around for nearly an hour and could not find a parent or guardian who would supervise the child. Thereafter, the informant called the police.

The police picked up the child and brought the child to the police station. Sometime thereafter Ibrahim arrived at the police station. He advised the police he was the child’s uncle.

Application To Dismiss The Criminal Charges

Ibrahim, in his application to dismiss the criminal charges against him, argued the Complaint against him was facially insufficient because it did not document that he had either custody or control of the child at the time and place of the alleged incident.

The District Attorney’s office claimed the charge did not require they show a relationship between the defendant and the child. They claimed the fact that Ibrahim appeared at the police station, acknowledged he was the child’s uncle and sought to take the child was sufficient to support the allegations of endangering the welfare of this child. The court did not agree with the prosecutors. The judge found there were no facts alleged by the District Attorney’s office showing the child was under Ibrahim’s care and control on the first floor fire escape. The judge went on further to state in his decision the prosecutors had an obligation to establish Ibrahim was in charge of watching his nephew. The prosecutors did not show he was responsible for his nephew on the date of the incident. He therefore could not be held liable for endangering the welfare of the child. Since the prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof, the case was dismissed.

father's rights attorneyElliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. He represents fathers with regard to allegations of child abuse and child neglect brought by Child Protective Services (CPS) or the Administration for Child Services (ACS).

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Father Wants Children Returned to Poland: The Court Disagrees

May 29, 2015 By

father's rights lawyer in New York CityAnetta and Cezari were born in Poland. They both came to the United States to be married in Brooklyn, New York in 2003. After they were married, they returned to Poland to live. They had two sons, K.G. who was born in 2004, and M.G. who was born in 2008. There were claims that their relationship involved spousal abuse.

Anetta Moves to New York

Anetta took her children and immigrated to New York in April 2011. Her mother had been living in Brooklyn. She moved in with her. In 2012, Anetta brought a divorce case in Brooklyn, New York against Cezari.

Family Court Proceedings

Both Anetta and Cezari brought proceedings in the Family Court of Kings County (Brooklyn). Anetta was granted both legal and physical custody of the parties’ children by the Family Court. Cezari was given visitation with the children, but the visitation had to take place within the United States.

U.S. District Court Proceeding

Cezari brought a proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (a federal court). He took this action under the Hague Convention, an international child abduction remedies act. He asked the District Court to have the children returned to Poland with him. Judge Frederic Block sitting in the Eastern District of New York found the children’s removal from Poland may have violated Cezari’s custody rights under Polish Law. However, he also found the children had “settled” in the United States. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Geneva Convention this made the United States their home. He found they attended school and church in the United States. He also found they were old enough to form relationships and attachments in their new home.

The judge did find there were some questionable issues concerning Anetta’s financial stability and also issues about the children’s appropriate immigration status. However, after reviewing all of the factors Judge Block found the children had “become so settled in their new environment that repatriation [is] not in [their] best interests.”

Conclusion

If you want to challenge custody, bring court proceedings immediately. If the children become too settled in their new country you may not be able to repatriate them.father's rights advocate on Long Island

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Custody Litigation

May 14, 2015 By

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:

Elliot Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney.  He has been representing fathers in all aspects of custody litigation and family law issues for more than 45 years.  He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Appeals Court Sets Aside Decision Giving Mother Sole Legal and Physical Custody of Child

May 10, 2015 By

A mother had brought a Family Court proceeding requesting sole custody of the parties’ child. The parties had initially been granted joint legal and shared custody of their child. They had also agreed to a “corrected” custody order. The Family Court after a fact finding hearing rendered a decision which found the father had twice violated the prior joint custody order. The Family Court therefore ordered the mother have sole legal and physical custody. The court had noted the father had failed to comply, pursuant to his own testimony, with the provisions of the joint custody order. The court therefore found they should not disturb the finding he was in willful violation of the court order. Based on this willful violation, the Family Court granted the mother’s petition giving her sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child.

The Appeal

The father had appealed the Family Court’s decision. The Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court, found the relationship between the mother and the father was not so acrimonious as to prevent them from having joint custody. The appeals court also noted the father’s basis for seeking sole custody stemmed not from an expressed inability to get along with the mother but was instead related to her stability. She had documented mental health and alcohol dependency issues. The appeals court in its decision stated neither the father nor the mother showed a sufficient change in circumstances which would cause the modification of the original custody order. The Family Court was therefore mistaken in awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother. The appeals court reinstated the original joint custody order and sent the case back to the Family Court to work out the details.

Conclusion

Courts are becoming more and more attuned to protecting father’s rights to maintain relationships with their children.father's rights advocate

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Father’s Parental Rights Terminated

April 27, 2015 By

father's rights advocateThe Family Court rendered a decision which granted a Department of Social Services (DSS) petition to revoke a suspended judgment against a father and permanently terminate his parental rights. The father appealed this decision to the Appellate Division of the Third Department (an appeals court).

The father had voluntarily given custody of his child to the Department of Social Services. In addition, he allowed a judgment for a one year order of supervision to be entered against him. Pursuant to this court order, he had to comply with certain terms and conditions established by the Department of Social Services for him to get his child back. Unfortunately, the father did not comply with the Department of Social Services’ requirements. The Department of Social Services took legal action and received the child from the father’s care and put the child back into foster care. Thereafter the Department of Social Services brought a proceeding claiming the father permanently neglected his children and as a result stated he was unfit to be a parent of this child and his parental rights should be permanently terminated.

The father, through his attorney, claimed his failure to undergo counseling with his fiancé was an inconsequential violation of the court order. These inconsequential violations should not result in the permanent termination of his parental rights to his child.

The Court’s Ruling

The Family Court ruled he was given sufficient opportunity to satisfy the conditions of the original suspended judgment. The court went on to state his failure to make meaningful effort to address the issues which caused his child to be taken away from him in the first place and placed in foster care caused the appellate court to find no basis to reverse the decision of the Family Court judge terminating the father’s parental rights. The court found that terminating the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest.

Conclusion

If the Department of Social Services either through Child Protective Services (CPS) or the Administration of Child Services (ACS), brings a proceeding for child neglect or child abuse against you, you should take it seriously. They have the power to bring proceedings to remove your parental rights and permanently take your children from you.lawyer who protects fathers

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Mother Prevented From Removing Child From The Country

April 24, 2015 By

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney.  He has been representing fathers in all types of family law matters and divorce issues for more than 45 years.   He and his associates work diligently to help fathers in custody cases, visitation proceedings, and in handling relocation issues to allow the fathers parenting time with their children.  Elliot can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,

Grandmother Gets Visitation of Child Moved to Florida

April 14, 2015 By

The Family Court of Rensselaer County, New York, granted a grandmother’s petition for visitation with her grandchild who had moved to Florida. The grandmother brought a petition for visitation concerning her grandchild. She claimed the mother and the grandchild had significant connections with the State of New York. She was able to present substantial evidence that the grandchild’s present and future welfare existed in the State of New York.

Mother Fights Grandmother’s Petition

The mother challenged both the grandmother’s right to have visitation with the grandchild and claimed the New York Court did not have jurisdiction to even hear the case. The Family Court of Rensselaer County, after hearing the case, decided the grandmother would have unsupervised visitation with the grandchild even though the grandchild was currently living in Florida.

The Mother Appeals

The mother appealed the case to the Appellate Division of the Third Department (an appeals court). In her appeal the mother claimed the Family Court should have dismissed the grandmother’s petition because New York did not have jurisdiction to handle the case. The Family Court judge rendered the decision to hear the case based on the fact New York was the home state of the grandchild for six months prior to the grandmother’s commencement of the visitation proceeding. The court took note the child moved to Florida only two months before the proceeding in the Family Court was initiated.

The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court giving the grandmother visitation. The Appeals Court ruled the Family Court had both jurisdiction over the grandchild and the mother of the grandchild.

Conclusion

This is a case involving a grandmother living in Rensselaer County, New York obtaining unsupervised visits with her grandchild who now resided in the State of Florida. This case is an example of protecting a grandparent’s rights to maintain a warm and loving relationship with her grandchild.attorney for grandparents seeking visitation

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , ,

Malicious Mother Syndrome

March 31, 2015 By

In divorce situations, cases exist where the mother seeks to do more than just alienate the children from the father. In these cases, the mother takes action to have a negative effect on the father’s life. Examples of actions which can be considered Malicious Mother Syndrome involve making false allegations the father sexually abused the children: taking action to have third parties harass and/or assault the father; making up vicious lies and stories about the father and taking action to have a negative impact on the father’s employment.

Malicious Mother Syndrome and Parental Alienation Syndrome

Malicious Mother Syndrome goes beyond Parental Alienation Syndrome. The theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome has the mother turning the children against the father. This very often can relate to the mother interfering and/or preventing the father from having visitation or a loving relationship with the children. Malicious Mother Syndrome is different from Parental Alienation Syndrome because this involves attacking other aspects of the father’s life, health and well-being beyond the father’s relationship with the children. Malicious Mother Syndrome involves campaigns against the father. In many cases of Malicious Mother Syndrome, the mother tries to manipulate third parties to hate the father based on information and stories which are untrue or greatly exaggerated.

Inappropriate behavior common to both Malicious Mother Syndrome and Parental Alienation Syndrome involve the following actions taken by the mother

  • alienating the children from the father
  •   interrupting the father’s visitation with the children
  • preventing the children from having telephone or internet contact with the father
  • convincing the children the father doesn’t love them
  • making up lies about the father and convincing the children these lies are true
  • engaging in excessive litigation for the sole purpose of creating problems in the father’s life

Dealing With Malicious Mother Syndrome

The best way to deal with Malicious Mother Syndrome is to go on the legal offensive. Bring applications to the court showing the judge what the mother is doing and the negative impact it is having on the children and the father’s life. To be successful in these endeavors, it is important to hire an experienced attorney who has the time, the resources, and the knowledge to bring, through litigation, the mother’s improper activities to the court’s attention. If the attorney you are using is unsuccessful or unable to handle the matter, you should find a more experienced, more capable attorney to bring these inappropriate actions to the court’s attention.attorney for fathers on Long Island

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »