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 custody proceedings, visitation agreements, and all aspects of matrimonial law and family law. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Justice Matthew Cooper sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in New York County, recently had a case before him involving dueling issues regarding child support. In this case the wife had sought temporary custody of the parties’ child. She also brought an application for a temporary award for spousal maintenance, child support and in addition asked she be awarded temporary attorney’s fees in this divorce case. The husband brought his own cross application. He also asked for temporary custody. He opposed all other aspects of the wife’s application.
Justice Cooper found the issues concerning custody were premature at this time. In his decision, Justice Cooper stated there were no exigent circumstances presented in this case. A custody determination would not need to be done on a temporary basis. He found custody was an issue to be determined after a full trial. He therefore denied both the motion by the wife for temporary custody and child support and the cross motion by the father.
In addition, Justice Cooper found, based on where the child spent overnights, the child spent more time with the father than with the mother. Therefore for purposes of determining child support he found the father was the residential custodial parent. This was another reason for turning down the wife’s request for child support.
Temporary Spousal Maintenance (Alimony)
Justice Cooper went through the mathematics concerning the statutory temporary spousal maintenance awards. He found that $3,506 was the mathematical amount the temporary maintenance award law required. However, he found based on a variety of factors under New York Domestic Relations Law, it was appropriate to make a downward deviation to prevent injustice. He therefore awarded the wife temporary spousal maintenance of only $650 per month. This was the same amount the father had previously been paying her on a voluntary basis. In addition, he awarded the wife $5,000 in attorney’s fees.
Conclusion
Fathers should not be shy about litigating issues of custody. Fathers have equal rights to obtain custody of their children.
Judge Douglas Hoffman, sitting in a Family Court Part in New York County, recently had a case before him involving an international custody problem which needed to be determined pursuant to the Hague Convention regarding international child custody issues. The United States is a signatory to this convention. This convention is considered a treaty which has the same enforcement ability as a federal law.
The father took the position in this case the mother had wrongfully kept the children in New York. He argued before the court the children should be returned to their country of habitual residence, Israel.
The parties had entered into a divorce settlement agreement. The agreement was detailed and had specific clauses involving parenting time. The agreement provided the mother would have primary residential custody of the children.
The mother had contacted the father. They had worked out an agreement where the children would come to New York to live with her for a period of one year. She requested the children come with her to New York so she could continue her education in New York.
The father took the position, after the year expired, the mother refused to return the children to Israel. He claimed this action violated the terms of the Hague Convention. The mother took the position the children were now established in New York and they should therefore remain in New York. Judge Hoffman noted in his decision, although the children were comfortable living in New York, they had no objections to returning to Israel. Judge Hoffman found the father had established a prima facie case regarding the wrongful retention of the children in the State of New York. The judge found the father’s testimony was believable while the mother’s testimony, that the father had agreed to allow the children to spend a second year in New York, was not credible.
Judge Hoffman in his decision found the mother’s keeping the children in New York impaired and prejudiced the father’s rights to see his children which was in violation of the parties’ settlement agreement which was incorporated by reference into their 2007 divorce. The judge therefore ordered the mother immediately return the children to Israel.
In a case before Judge Lillian Wan in the Family Court located in Kings County, both a father and mother brought petitions for sole custody of their child. An attorney for the child was appointed. The attorney for the child recommended the mother receive sole legal and physical custody of the child pursuant to the request of the child.
The court took into consideration that a neglect finding had been issued without admissions against the father for excessive corporal punishment. In addition there was an abuse finding against the mother based on her acknowledgment she intentionally burned the child’s buttocks. As a result of these findings the child was removed from the home.
Boy Released to Father’s Custody
The child in question, a young boy, was released to the custody of his father in March 2012. The boy has been in his father’s custody with supervised visitation granted for the mother since that time. Judge Lillian Wan found while there was a finding of neglect against the father, the finding against the mother concerning burning the child’s buttocks was a much more serious finding. Judge Wan took into consideration the boy had been living with the father since 2012 and there had been a dramatic improvement in the behavior of the father since that time. However, the court found the mother had not proven herself to be a stable, fit parent or shown remorse in therapy for burning the child.
Judge Wan reached the decision it was in the child’s best interest to give sole legal and physical custody to the father and give the mother unsupervised visits during the course of the day with the child. The mother was not given overnight visitation with the child.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
In custody litigation the court must determine which parent would be better at taking care of the best interests of the child or children. Best interests of the child or children involves which parent can provide a life situation where the child will thrive and grow emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and physically. The large majority of custody issues are resolved out of court in custody agreements between the parties. However a small number of custody matters require a judge to make a decision as to which parent would be better suited to being the residential custodial parent of the child.
Each litigant in a custody case will seek to prove it is in the child’s best interest for the child to reside with them. In order to accomplish this goal, a litigant in a custody case should obtain documentation supporting his or her claims. This documentation should show the involvement of that parent in the child’s medical needs, school, work, after school activities, family and social events, and other issues which would lead a judge to believe that parent was the primary, caring individual involved with raising the child and promoting the child’s best interests. A parent seeking custody should show his or her residence provides appropriate accommodations for the child, is within a reasonable distance of the child’s school, and the living environment the child would be exposed to is conducive to raising a child. Photographs of the place the child will live, his room, the accommodations of the home should be available to present to the court.
Who The Child Seeks to Live With
In the State of New York, in custody battles, an attorney is appointed to represent the child. The attorney for the child is supposed to meet with the child and take into consideration the child’s desires as to who he or she would seek to live with. It is this author’s opinion the child’s position as to who should be the residential custodial parent should only be considered with mature children. Unfortunately, this is not the law in New York. I have had numerous cases where attorneys for a child have come into court and advised the court who the 4 or 5 year old they interviewed would seek to live with. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds often change their minds, sometimes 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute span.
Support System
Parents seeking custody of a child should be able to make a presentation to the court who will be taking care of the child, supervising the child, and meeting the child’s needs 7 days a week. If the parent works, he or she must present to the court a support system which would nurture the child, protect the child, and properly supervise the child when that parent is unavailable due to employment or other reasons.
The More Available Parent
Some parents have employment situations which are more flexible than others. The parent with the more flexible position can make a presentation to the judge that he or she would be available to be there for the child during school programs, after school activities, and help with homework. Judges do take a parent’s availability to nurture a child into consideration when custody issues are presented to them.
Elliot Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer practicing law within the Metropolitan New York area for more than 35 years. 
Please view today’s blog video by clicking on the following link:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
In custody litigation the court must determine which parent would be better at taking care of the best interests of the child or children. Best interests of the child or children involves which parent can provide a life situation where the child will thrive and grow emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and physically. The large majority of custody issues are resolved out of court in custody agreements between the parties. However a small number of custody matters require a judge to make a decision as to which parent would be better suited to being the residential custodial parent of the child.
Each litigant in a custody case will seek to prove it is in the child’s best interest for the child to reside with them. In order to accomplish this goal, a litigant in a custody case should obtain documentation supporting his or her claims. This documentation should show the involvement of that parent in the child’s medical needs, school, work, after school activities, family and social events, and other issues which would lead a judge to believe that parent was the primary, caring individual involved with raising the child and promoting the child’s best interests. A parent seeking custody should show his or her residence provides appropriate accommodations for the child, is within a reasonable distance of the child’s school, and the living environment the child would be exposed to is conducive to raising a child. Photographs of the place the child will live, his room, the accommodations of the home should be available to present to the court.
Who The Child Seeks to Live With
In the State of New York, in custody battles, an attorney is appointed to represent the child. The attorney for the child is supposed to meet with the child and take into consideration the child’s desires as to who he or she would seek to live with. It is this author’s opinion the child’s position as to who should be the residential custodial parent should only be considered with mature children. Unfortunately, this is not the law in New York. I have had numerous cases where attorneys for a child have come into court and advised the court who the 4 or 5 year old they interviewed would seek to live with. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds often change their minds. Sometimes 3 or 4 times during a 15 minute span.
Support System
Parents seeking custody of a child should be able to make a presentation to the court who will be taking care of the child, supervising the child, and meeting the child’s needs 7 days a week. If the parent works, he or she must present to the court a support system which would nurture the child, protect the child, and properly supervise the child when that parent is unavailable due to employment or other reasons.
The More Available Parent
Some parents have employment situations which are more flexible than others. The parent with the more flexible position can make a presentation to the judge that he or she would be available to be there for the child during school programs, after school activities, and help with homework. Judges do take a parent’s availability to nurture a child into consideration when custody issues are presented to them.
Elliot Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer practicing law within the Metropolitan New York area for more than 35 years.
Please watch today’s blog video at the following link:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net
Supreme Court Justice John Colangelo sitting in Westchester County recently changed custody from a mother to a father. A post judgment divorce action was initiated involving a 9 year old child.
The mother and father were divorced in 2009. In 2010, the mother had brought a Family Court proceeding for the purpose of modifying the parenting schedule which was initially set forth in the 2009 Family Court Order. The court at that time found the facts required a change in custody. The court found it was in the child’s best interest custody be changed from the mother to the father. The father was thereafter given full legal custody and final decision making. He was also designated as the primary custodial parent. The court found the mother was incapable of promoting a meaningful relationship between the child and his father.
The Actions of the Mother
While the mother had physical custody of the child she did everything in her power to prevent the father from having a relationship with his son. She tried to totally separate the two. The court found her responsibility was to encourage a healthy relationship between the father and son and she did the opposite. The court therefore changed custody.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
