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

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.

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

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

Custody Modified: Father Given Custody

father's rights attorneysIn a recent case, Judge Stacy Bennett, a Family Court Judge now sitting in the Supreme Court in Nassau County granted a father a modification of a previous custody order.  The modification granted him the physical custody of his daughter.

In this case the father claimed the mother had been engaged in “vicious behavior” which included repeated false accusations of sexual abuse by the father. These accusations were unfounded. In spite of the fact that they were unfounded they resulted in an eventual alienation of the parties’ daughter.

On three previous occasions the Court had dismissed family offense petitions brought by the mother alleging physical sexual abuse by the father.  The Court had also vacated temporary orders of protection in this situation.  A Court appointed forensic evaluator, in his report, recommended custody be transferred from the mother to the father. Judge Stacy Bennett agreed with the forensic evaluators findings. She felt the evidence established the mother would continue to make the reports of sexual abuse. She found the mother was “unwilling and unable to promote a healthy relationship between the father and the child. This put the child at risk of emotional damage.”

Best Interest of Children To Give Father Custody

            The Court found the best interest of the child would be to modify the previous custody order and change custody from the mother to the father. The Judge found that the mother was unfit to continue to act as her daughter’s custodial parent.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

            Fathers, for decades, have found themselves guilty until proven innocent of false charges of child abuse. This decision is a step in the right direction!

About the Author’s Law Firm

            The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo
have represented thousands of fathers in child custody and visitation proceedings throughout the Metropolitan, New York area during the last 45 years.  We offer free consultations and our phones are monitored 24/7.custody and child support assistance for fathers

Father, Active In The Military, Granted Modification Of Custody Allowing Him To Have Custody

father's rights attorneyIn a decision in the Family Court of Suffolk County, Judge Teresa Bryant Whelan, in October of 2011, granted a father who was active in the military, residing in Virginia, custody of his children.  Judge Whelen, in her opinion, stated that the parties had agreed to separation and joint legal custody.  Initially, the mother was the residential custodial parent.

In his petition to modify the custody application, the father alleged the mother had stopped taking her mental health medication.  It also alleged she abused drugs and alcohol.  As a result of the mothers improper conduct her children were removed from her care.  The maternal grandmother was the temporary custodial parent.

Unfortunately, the grandmother worked long hours and had difficulty caring for the children.  The Court found that the father was the more fit parent and it was in the children’s best interest that custody be changed and he be given residential custody.  The Court indicated in its decision even though the father was an active member of the United States Air force and subject to possible relocation, it was still in the children’s best interest that custody be awarded to him.

Conclusion

            This case is an example of the continuing development of a father’s right to have custody of his children in New York.family court advocate for fathers