Custody Changed Where Mother Alienated Children Against Father

father's rights lawyerReferee Dean Richardson-Mendelson, sitting in the Family Court of Rockland County, recently had a very disturbing case presented to him involving parental alienation of three children by a mother against their father. In this case, the father sought to modify a previously entered Judgment of Divorce. The settlement in the divorce case had granted both the mother and the father joint legal custody of the parties’ three children. The father now sought sole legal custody and sole physical custody of all three children due to the mother’s relentless program of parental alienation of the three children against the father.

Father’s Parenting Time in the Judgment of Divorce

In the original Judgment of Divorce the father was granted parenting time on alternating weekends. In addition he had two dinner visits with the children during the week. Pursuant to the Judgment of Divorce the father had parenting time on alternating holidays in addition to the standard weekly visitation.

Court Grants Sole Legal Custody and Physical Custody to Father

Referee Dean Richardson-Mendelson found the mother had systematically over a period of time, engaged in parental alienation of the children. Her actions were of such a nature to prevent the father from having a relationship with his children. Referee Richardson-Mendelson found the mother’s actions were systematic and designed to sabotage the father’s relationship with his children.

The Court noted in its decision the children maintained a negative view of the father that was not related to the actual reality of the parental situation between the father and the children. He further found the distortion in the relationship between the children and the father was caused by the mother’s relentless campaign of negatively influencing the children against the father. The court ordered a change in custody of two of the three children. Unfortunately, the court found that the third child was so indoctrinated by the mother to hate her father, he was concerned that she would run away.

parental alienation assistanceElliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers throughout the metropolitan New York area for more than 45 years with regard to custody, visitation and divorce related issues.

Visitation Problems

father's rights lawyerVisitation problems with children usually involves one parent interfering with the parenting rights of the other. Parenting plans are usually established in divorce judgments, settlements in divorce cases, settlements in Family Court, judicial rulings on custody and visitation issues. Usually one parent is the residential custodial parent, meaning the child lives with this parent and the other parent has visitation (parenting time) with the child or children. So what do you do if one parent does not comply with the terms of the court order or parenting agreement? In the short run it is important to document the interference with visitation rights. A written diary should be maintained documenting each and every instance of one parent interfering with the other parent’s access or parenting time with the children.

Sometimes a mediator can be utilized to try to work out parenting time issues. If the parenting rights issue cannot be amicably resolved, it is strongly suggested you retain an attorney experienced in handling custody, visitation, and parenting rights issues. There are specific standards utilized by the courts in cases involving changing custody. Courts generally look for a change in circumstances before they will issue an order changing the residential custodial parent.

Reason for Change in Visitation Schedules

Life is not stagnant. Parents may seek to relocate. Employment of one or both of the parents may change, and with this change there may be a different work schedule that does not work well with the prior visitation order or visitation agreement. If visitation (parenting time) arrangements need to be changed and the parties cannot amicably work this out between them, a petition must be submitted to the Family Court or if the parties had been divorced, an application can be brought to the Supreme Court to modify the terms of the divorce related to the visitation/parenting time schedules.

Courts will utilize the standard of what is in the children’s best interest when dealing with custody and visitation issues. Protecting the children and allowing the children to reach their maximum potential and live a happy life is more important than the sometimes ping pong ball type of pulling back and forth between parents regarding visitation issues. If one of the parents does not live up to his or her responsibilities under Court Orders or visitation agreements this should be brought up to the judge handling the case and may be a ground for a change in custody.

How Much Visitation is Appropriate

It is in the child’s best interest to have two dedicated loving parents. Courts are moving towards giving the parent the child doesn’t live with as much visitation as is practical. Children that have two parents who want to spend time with them are blessed. The children should be allowed to grow and prosper as individuals within the love and understanding of both parents.help for caring fathers

Change of Circumstances Necessary for Court to Change Custody

fathers rights lawyerIn a case in Westchester Family Court decided in August 2013, Judicial Hearing Officer Howard Spitz dealt with competing applications by both the mother and the father to modify a So Ordered Stipulation of Settlement granting physical custody to a child’s mother. Both the father and the mother filed petitions with the Family Court seeking to have custody changed to sole custody for them.

Forensic Evaluator Appointed

The Court ordered an independent forensic evaluator be appointed. The evaluator was ordered to write a report concerning the competing custody petitions. The report of the forensic evaluator called the mother a “restrictive gate keeper.” The report by the forensic evaluator recommended the court grant the father sole custody.

The attorney for the mother hired an independent expert to provide his own forensic report. The expert hired by the mother’s counsel, testified there were deficiencies and major flaws in the report of the court appointed evaluator. Judicial Hearing Officer Spitz found there were “errors of omission by the court appointed independent forensic evaluator.”

Failure to Prove Change of Circumstances

Judicial Hearing Officer Spitz in his decision stated neither the mother nor the father were able to establish a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a change or modification of the custody arrangement worked out in the 2008 Stipulation of Settlement.

Judicial Hearing Officer Spitz’s decision found the child was well adjusted, didn’t have anxiety, and was a good student. His decision stated giving one parent all decision making authority and awarding that parent sole custody was not in the child’s best interest. Both the father’s and the mother’s petitions were denied. The court did change decision making authority from the mother to the father concerning all issues involving education and financial matters.advocate for fathers

Grandparents’ Control Over Visitation Upheld

father's rights lawyerA proceeding was brought in Nassau County Supreme Court by Steven Libin. He requested the New York Court relinquish control over custody and visitation rights pursuant to a stipulation, to the Courts in Israel. Acting Supreme Court Judge Hope Zimmerman ruled against him. He appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, an appeals court in New York. The Appeals Court found Judge Zimmerman, “properly concluded that [her court] retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the stipulation as modified to reflect the child’s new residence in Israel.”

History of the Case

The child was born in February 2008. At the time, Libin and his wife, Diana, were residing in Israel. Diana died shortly after childbirth. Libin and the wife’s parents entered into an agreement in Nassau County wherein the wife’s parents, Katerina and Alexander Berkovitch, were given temporary custody of the child. Libin thereafter brought a proceeding in Nassau County and asked for sole custody and requested the prior stipulation with the grandparents be nullified.

Child in Israel but Case Stays in New York

In October 2008, a stipulation was entered into between Libin and the grandparents which gave Libin custody and the grandparents visitation rights. The stipulation was entered into at a time when Libin was residing in Israel. The stipulation stated the Supreme Court (in Nassau County) “shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing or modifying or interpreting the terms of this agreement.”

The child lived for three years with Libin’s parents on Long Island. The paternal grandparents visited regularly.

In 2011, the maternal grandparents found out Libin had taken the child to Israel. At that time, Libin sought to have the jurisdiction over this proceeding transferred from the Supreme Court in Nassau County to courts in Israel. The court’s decision stated even though Libin planned on living in Israel, the signing of the stipulation giving jurisdiction to the New York State Court was still valid.

Conclusion

This is a case where the grandparents’ rights were upheld.helping grandparents

Internet Downloaded Separation Agreement Found Valid

father's rights lawyerIn a recent case before Justice Leonard Steinman sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in Nassau County, a husband had filed a divorce action against his wife. In this proceeding, he sought to incorporate by reference a separation agreement into the judgement of divorce. The wife argued the agreement should not be allowed to be incorporated into the judgement of divorce. She claimed she was induced by fraud into signing the agreement.

A motion was made to determine whether the agreement was valid. The Court found the agreement was drafted by the wife. She found the agreement on an internet website. After downloading and printing the agreement she presented it to the husband, he executed it.
The agreement had a waiver of spousal maintenance. It also stated there would be “no demand for child support payments”. The agreement required the parties sell the marital home and equally divide the proceeds. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the parties opted out of exchanging financial net worth statements. Neither the husband nor the wife were represented by an attorney during the course of the negotiation and execution of the agreement. However, the parties did properly execute the agreement before a notary public and they filed it with the County Clerk of Nassau County.

The Agreement Terms Were Followed

The Court found that the parties had followed the terms of the agreement after its execution. The Court found the parties had lived separate lives. They did not share a bedroom together. They also filed separate tax returns.

The Court found the separation agreement executed by the wife was not unfair or inequitable. The judge ruled the wife’s claims that the parties did not intend to be bound by the agreement were undercut by “its unambiguous terms.” He made this decision even though the wife waived spousal maintenance in the agreement.

It should be noted, the husband acknowledged that the child support provision does not comply with the Child Support Standards Act. However, he agreed that this could be severed from the agreement and the rest of the agreement could be enforced.

Justice Steinman found the agreement to be valid and incorporated it into the judgement of divorce.

Conclusion

In this case, the wife wanted to have her cake and to eat it too. She drafts an agreement and then decides later on she wants more. Justice Steinman found she was not entitled to a second bite at the apple. This is a case where men’s rights were protected.advocate for father's rights

Order of Protection Thrown Out

father's rights attorneyThe Appellate Division of the Second Department (an appeals court) in the State of New York recently vacated an order of protection obtained by a wife against her husband. The court ruled that the alleged disorderly conduct which took place inside the parties’ home did not sufficiently prove that the husband engaged in disorderly conduct which was intended to cause, or recklessly create, a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

The Story

Mr. and Mrs. Cassie were not getting along. Mrs. Cassie decided one day to pack up her husband’s bags and change the locks to the house. Mr. Cassie came home from work and found he could not get into his house. At some point one of his children let him in. Mr. and Mrs. Cassie had two daughters aged 16 and 17.

An argument ensued on the second floor of the parties’ home while the children were watching TV. Mrs. Cassie called the police alleging her husband had assaulted her. Mr. Cassie denied that he had assaulted her. He voluntarily left the marital residence.

Mrs. Cassie went to the Brooklyn Family Court. She obtained an Order of Protection based on a decision by Judge Anthony Cannataro that determined that Mr. Cassie had committed the family offense of disorderly conduct.

Mr. Cassie appealed.

The Appeal

In his appeal, Mr. Cassie claimed his wife did not make out a prima facie case for disorderly conduct. The Appellate Court agreed. The decision of the Appellate Division was that the disorderly conduct had to have some sort of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Since this event took place in the family’s home, there was no reckless disregard that might cause public harm. The court found Mrs. Cassie did not prove her case.

The Appellate Court overruled the family court decision and allowed Mr. Cassie back into his house.

About the Author

assistance for fathersElliot Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney practicing throughout the metropolitan New York area.

Stay At Home Fathers

father's rights attorneyMillions of fathers are involved in raising their children. Fathers who dedicate their lives to help raising their children should be recognized more often for these endeavors by the courts in New York. Research shows in approximately 25% of all marriages, the mother is the primary bread winner.

As women have become more ambitious in fulfilling their careers more issues concerning father’s rights have developed. Many fathers feel they are not given sufficient parenting time with their children. Some conservatives in the United States argue against the concept of the nurturing father. They claim nurturing fathers act as substitute mothers and this denies children a masculine role model. I believe this is a lot of hogwash!

Equal Rights For Fathers

Feminists in the 70’s wanted equal rights for mothers. In the State of New York, since 1989, mothers have equal rights. When mother’s obtained equal rights, fathers also received equal rights.

Two Sided Feminist Arguments

Feminists today agree that men should be more involved in raising their children. However today’s feminists only want fathers to be treated equally when it is convenient for them.

Traditional Role

In the traditional family, the father goes out to work and the mother stays home and raises the children. The majority of families in the United States raise their children in this manner. However, this majority is getting smaller and smaller. The time for father’s rights is now!

Facts About The Author

advocate for fathersElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers throughout the metropolitan New York area.

New York Court Returns Child To Singapore

father's rights lawyerIn an international custody dispute, the US Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit (a Federal appeals court) ordered a 4 year old boy returned to Singapore with his father. The Court took this action despite allegations from the child’s mother the move would put him at “grave risk” of domestic violence.

There was a court order from a court in Singapore which prevented Lee Jen Far from removing her son Shayan from the country. In spite of this, she took her son from Singapore to New York. She claimed the boy would witness physical and verbal abuse against her from the child’s father Abdoloah Nagash Souragatar. She also claimed the boy would also be subject to child abuse. She alleged the father could take the boy to Iran or bring action to seek custody in Islamic courts in Singapore that favored men.

Appeals Court Holds Against Mother

The Appeals Court found “after carefully reviewing the record, Far’s arguments are permeated with conjecture and speculation.” The Appeals Court decision ordered the boy be repatriated under the Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction.

Marital History

Lee and Souragatar were married in 2008. Shayan was born in 2009. The marriage was described as “stormy”. Lee claimed she was physically abused in front of her son. Lee brought a proceeding in Singapore Civil Court for sole custody. The father, Souragatar, filed a cross petition for sole custody. The civil court in Singapore ordered that neither parent should remove Shayan from Singapore without the other parents’ consent.

helping fathers with custodyThe father and mother agreed to resolve the custody issue in Singapore’s Sharia courts. In violation of the Court’s order, Lee took Shayan to Dutchess County, New York to live with a family member. Souragatar initially had difficulty locating his wife and son. When he did, he brought a proceeding in Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York under the Hague Convention claiming the child needed to be returned to Singapore. The Federal Appeals Court agreed with his arguments.

Custody Proceedings – Cross Examination Of Forensic Experts

father's rights lawyersIn custody proceedings, in the Family Courts and Supreme Courts of New York State, the Judge will often order the parties, the child or children and the significant others of the parties be interviewed by forensic experts. Thereafter, the forensic expert usually issues a written report. Should the case go to trial, the forensic expert will testify at trial with regard to the material in his or her report.

Neutral Forensic Experts

            The forensic reports of neutral experts are submitted to the Court. The attorneys for the parties are entitled to review the reports. In most instances the attorneys are not allowed to provide a copy of the report to their clients. The attorneys usually take notes as to what is in the report and utilize their notes with regard to the examination and cross examination of the forensic expert at the time of trial.

Forensic Expert Reports And Individuals Representing Themselves

            What happens if the individual in the custody dispute represents himself or herself?   In these situations shouldn’t the individual representing him or herself be given access to the report so he or she will be on equal standing as the attorney for the other party with regard to the testimony of the expert at the trial?

In a recent case before an Appeals Court (the Appellate division of the First Department) entitled Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner, the issue of individuals representing themselves and having access to forensic expert reports was dealt with. The case involved the mother trying to relocate her child from New York to North Carolina. The father objected to the relocation claiming it would have a negative impact on his parenting time with the child. A forensic report was prepared. The father sought to review the report. His request was denied.  The case went to trial and the mother won.

The father appealed claiming that he should have been given access to the forensic report which the Court accepted into evidence.  The Appellate Division found the trial court had made an error in not allowing the father to review his report. However, they found this was “harmless error.” How could this be harmless error?

Fairness Requires Equal Access to Forensic Expert Reports

            Litigants should have equal access to all material that impacts their case. In this case, the father representing himself was forced to try his case at a disadvantage. The other attorney was fully cognizant of the material in the expert report prior to it being presented into evidence. He was not.

Due Process Denied

            Justice David Saxe, who had a dissenting opinion on this case, stated “expert reports by mental health professionals are an important element at trial of custody litigation. The procedure typically employed by the New York trial courts in recent years is to provide a copy of the expert’s report to the attorneys, with the direction that the copies are not to be provided to their clients or others outside the litigation team.”  The Judge went on to write in the event a litigant is self-represented, a copy of the report should be maintained at the Courthouse and provided to the litigant. The dissenting opinion was correct and the majority opinion was wrong.

About the Attorney

            Elliot S. Schlissel is a fathers’ rights lawyer representing fathers in child custody, visitation, child support, relocation cases and all other issues involving father’s parental rights. He has been practicing law for more than 34 years.divorce assistance for fathers

Challenging Paternity

father's rights lawyerIn a case before Judge Lubow, in the Queen’s Family Court, a father brought a proceeding to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity. He claimed he had been fraudulently induced into signing the acknowledgment of paternity.  His papers stated, he relied on the mother’s contention he was the biological father. She had advised him she had been separated from her husband for a substantial period of time, and she didn’t  have sex with anyone else.

DNA Paternity Testing

            The father now claims DNA testing has shown he is not the father. The Court, in its ruling, stated that there is a presumption of legitimacy regarding a child born during the marriage. The presumption is the child is a biological product of the marriage. This presumption, the Court stated, should only be rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence tending to exclude the husband as the father or otherwise disproving legitimacy.”

Mistake Of Fact Or Fraud

            In this case, the Court found there had been a detrimental reliance on a mistake of fact or fraud. The Court found it was not in the child’s best interest to leave this question up in the air. The court ordered official DNA testing. The court stated, if it found the biological father was the woman’s husband the acknowledgment of paternity would be stricken. However, if it found that he was the biological father he would still be able to petition for visitation with the child.paternity assistance for fathers