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

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.

Protecting Men’s Rights in a Divorce

father's rights lawyerAlthough there are many issues that need to be dealt with in divorce situations, there are two basic themes. The first theme has to do with children, custody and visitation. The second theme has to do with division of assets, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony) and other financial issues.

Punished for Being Successful!?

Men who have worked hard to obtain an excellent education and/or credentials and have strived and dedicated themselves to both their family and their employment initiatives, should not be punished in a divorce situation.

Often men come into our law office with questions such as:

  1.   I have worked hard to develop my business, how can I keep it?
  2. How do I keep my career, provide for my children, and not become a deep pocket to fund my wife’s exorbitant lifestyle?

Planning and Strategy

Fighting a complicated divorce can be similar to fighting a mini war. If negotiations and settlement attempts fail, each side prepares for a battle. This battle is called a trial.

Our office helps our clients develop an effective strategy to preserve their assets, maintain relationships with their children, and not be devastated by the divorce process itself. Approximately 5% of all divorce cases in New York go to trial. The other 95% are settled either before trial or at trial. It therefore is necessary to prepare for trial while continuing to negotiate to obtain the best possible results.

Caring for a Child

A father’s love and devotion for his children is not second string to a mother’s love and devotion to her children. Under the law in the State of New York, both parents are considered to have equal ability to obtain custody of their children. Today, more and more fathers are stepping up to the plate saying “I want custody of my children.” Fathers are dedicating themselves to being in their children’s lives. The former standardized types of visitation that judges handed out in the past do not necessarily meet the father’s needs today.

The Best Interests of the Child

The standard in the State of New York as to who receives custody of the children is what is in the children’s best interest. Judges are forced to make these very difficult decisions. There is no standardized scale rating mothers and fathers for their talents involving child raising, emotional stability, and bonding with their children. There are standards within the statutes in the State of New York but they are general standards. In many situations, judges make decisions on who will receive custody based upon gut reactions that are thereafter qualified within the law.

Children deserve the love, dedication and financial support from both parents. In some cases, joint custody arrangements can be worked out and the parents can amicably raise their children. However, this is not true in all cases. In some cases, the children are going to live with one parent and the other parent is going to visit! If you are a father and seek being more than a visitor in your child’s life, then you need the best, most dedicated, most experienced father’s rights lawyers to protect your interest. At the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo our father’s rights attorneys have been delivering for our clients for more than 45 years.helping fathers and children

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.

Wealthy Father Doesn’t Have To Pay Child Support

father's rights attorneyIn a recent decision an Appellate Court in New York State held a father who has custody of his son during the majority of the year has no obligation to pay child support to the child’s mother even though the father has in excess of $20 million in assets and the mother had no income!

In the case of Rubin vs. Della Salla 350047/09, the Appellate Division (an appeals court) of the First Department held Anthony Della Salla who has custody of his son 56% of the year is the child’s custodial parent. Since he was the child’s custodial parent, he cannot be ordered to pay child support even though the mother is penniless and he has $20 million in assets.

History Of The Case

The couple was never married. The child was born in 2003. The couple broke up in 2007. The boy lived with his father most of the time. During the 2008-2009 calendar year, the parties reached an agreement wherein Della Salla took the boy to school most school days and had custody of him most weekends and holidays.

In the year 2009, Ms. Rubin filed an action against Della Salla seeking sole custody and requesting he pay child support. Rubin had been unemployed since 2001 and had no income. Della Salla had voluntarily been providing her with money. However, he reduced the amount of money he had been giving her in 2008 to force her to obtain employment.

Initial Pendent Lite Support Order

Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer had originally granted the application brought on by an application for Pendente Lite Child Support (temporary child support motion). She ordered Della Salla to pay $5,000 a month in child support. He had complied with this order.

A trial was held and Judge Gesmer awarded Della Salla residential custody of the child during the school year with Rubin having custody on alternate weekends and Thursday nights. Rubin also had legal custody concerning educational and medical decisions. In the summer, the schedule was reversed. Della Salla would have custody on Thursday nights and alternate weekends and Rubin would have custody the rest of the time. All vacations were evenly split.

Della Salla made an application to the court to dismiss Rubin’s claim for child support. He argued if he was the custodial parent he could not be compelled to pay child support. Justice Gesmer denied the motion. Both of the parties appealed. The Appellate Division in the First Department affirmed the custody finding. They found Judge Gesmer was mistaken in granting Della Salla’s application for child support. Since the son spent 56% of his time with his father and 44% of his time with his mother, the father was the de facto custodial parent. The court stated under the CSSA’s (Child Support Standards Act) plain language, “only the non-custodial parent can be directed to pay child support.”

Victory For Father’s Rights

The Appellate court made the right decision. Child support should only be paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. In this case, the mother sought to punish the father for his success. The purposes of child support is not to subsidize a mother’s life. Child support should only be used to help support the child while he or she is living with the custodial parent. This case is a significant victory for father’s rights.advocates for fathers

Custody Case Appealed

father's rights attorneysThe Appellate Division of the Second Department, an appeal’s court, is currently entertaining an appeal on an unusual custody case. The lower court Judge in the Family Court, rendered a decision awarding residential custody to the mother. However, the court also granted decision making authority to the father.  An appeal ensued.  The attorney for the father claimed this arrangement cannot work. However the mother claimed she is prepared to try to allow the arrangement to work.  An attorney for the child asked the appellate court to leave the decision as is.
The mother in this case is a real estate developer. The father is an assistant district attorney in Kings County. He also serves as a Fordham University School of Law adjunct professor and a legal commentator for a television station.

Divorced In 2005

The parties were divorced in 2005. They originally had joint custody and joint decision making authority. The mother, Ann Marie McEvoy, was the primary residential custodial parent. Ms. McEvoy felt her son had autistic tendencies and needed special care. Hannigan, the father, disagreed. Thereafter custody litigation started. The case languished in the court’s for years.

Both the mother and the father have appealed this case. Both the mother and the father in oral argument claimed their son’s best interest would be met if each of them had custody. Both the mother and the father made the same best interest argument to the appellate court. The mother claimed her son Chad would be better off with her because she provided “a warm nurturing environment.”

The father’s attorney claimed he had a “loving relationship with his son” and offered him “a safe, secure and healthy environment.” The father also claimed the son “thrived and flourished academically and socially when in his care.” He also claimed the mother tried to alienate the boy from him. The father claimed he was the only parent who would allow a relationship to exist with both parents.

Child’s Preference In Custody

The attorney for the father argued the “wishes of the 10, 11 or 12 year old child is not what the court is mandated to follow.”  She claimed the attorney for the child had not “accurately and fairly” represented the child because she immediately “adopted his position” before knowing the circumstances and facts involved in the case.

The attorney for the child claimed the child had a mind of his own. The attorney for the father claimed the court was “troubled because the decision was internally inconsistent and hoped that the appeals court would overrule this decision.” Stay tuned for the Court’s decision which will be published in this blog when rendered by the Appeals Court.child custody assistance for fathers

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

Mother’s Relocation Of Children Denied

father's rights attorneyIn a case in Monroe County, Supreme Court, Justice Dollinger took into consideration the preference of two boys, 11 and 14 years of age, in making a decision to allow them to stay in Rochester with their father. Their mother had brought an application to the Court to relocate the children to Washington DC. She had recently received a new position as an assistant dean at Howard University. The Judge, in his decision, stated “that consistency of their preference and the sound basis for it – it is undisputed they have friends, opportunity, activities, and substantial academic success in Rochester – requires that this Court ascribe some significant weight to their choice.”

Court Didn’t Want To Move Children From A Strong Environment

The Judge in his opinion also stated “it is undisputed the sons are thriving in Monroe County.” Both excel in academic performance; both are heavily involved in activities from Lego robotics, to boy scouts, music, religious instruction and other activities. Neither parent could cite a single example in which the two sons have not achieved substantial success in their home community.  Both boys had expressed their wishes to remain in Rochester. The Court found both the father and mother were excellent parents.  The Court took into consideration the relationship between both the custodial and non-custodial parent.  The Court looked at the degree to which the children’s lives might be enhanced by the move. The Court also took into consideration preserving the custodial relationship between the mother and the children concerning the move. The mother argued for continuing her custodial relationship with the children and that the move to Washington would provide them with cultural and academic opportunities.

Father’s Rights Protected

The father promised to keep the sons involved in the activities in the locality in Rochester, attend the same church and maintain a relationship with their friends. The court, in its decision, stated “in this Court’s judgment, the relocation to Washington, DC would impact the quality of the visitation as well as the casual, easygoing quality described by the father as the interaction with his sons.”  The Judge further wrote “if the father were required to visit his sons in Washington, there is no evidence as to how he would achieve reasonable visitation while staying in a hotel, for example. Based on these factors the quantity and quality of the father’s visitation will be substantially impacted by the relocation.”

It should be noted the sons, prior to the relocation, lived with the mother and the father had visitation on alternative weekends and two evenings a week.

This is a victory for fathers’ rights advocates!father's rights advocates on long island