To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He represents fathers in custody litigation, child support litigation, and issues involving visitation rights and parenting time. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Kenneth Dearden, a Westchester Real Estate Developer, was shot in the head by his wife as he slept in his home. Kenneth claims his wife tried to kill him to avoid a difficult divorce.
On November 14, 2013, Kenneth Dearden woke up in terrible pain. He had received a gunshot wound to the base of his skull. It is theorized he only survived because the shooter used an antique Deringer which had been a gift to his wife from her parents.
Dearden has taken the position his wife had been having an affair since 2011 and her lover had put pressure on her to take action to end her marriage. Dearden’s lawyer stated “with plaintiff no longer in the picture, defendant could avoid a contentious divorce, keep the marital home and never admit the marital infidelity to any family or friends.”
Wife Charged With Attempted Murder
Emily Dearden has been charged with attempted murder. Her attorney has denied the allegations on her behalf. Ms. Dearden is currently free on $150,000 bail. She has been suspended from her position as a New York Police Department psychologist.
On the night of the shooting, Kenneth Dearden looked for his wife. He wanted her to take him to the hospital. She claimed she had been hit on the head. The house’s alarm system had been turned off. Initially Dearden thought he had been attacked by an intruder. When the police came to the Deardens’ home, Emily Dearden was laundering dirty clothes. She asked the police if they had a warrant. The police found a pair of Deringers and were able to determine one of the guns had been fired. Unfortunately, the bullet taken from Kenneth Dearden’s skull was too damaged for a ballistics match.
Conclusion
Divorces may be messy and painful, but not as painful as a long term jail sentence!
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers in all aspects of matrimonial and family law. 
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 parents in child custody, CPS and ACS investigations and other family matters for more than 45 years. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a grandparents’ rights lawyer with more than 35 years experience. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, 1-800-344-6431 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.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog,
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. His office can be reached at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
There was litigation in the Family Court between a father and a mother. The father alleged the mother had acted in an obstreperous manner, had interfered with his visitation with the parties’ children in violation of court orders and had created a situation which made it extremely difficult for the father to have visitation. The father claimed the mother’s disruptive, antagonistic behavior was not in the children’s best interest and was having a negative impact on the parties’ child.
A trial was held in the Family Court. The mother had declined to have an attorney and had represented herself during these proceedings. At the end of the Family Court trial, the Family Court Judge found there had been a change in circumstances to the extent a change in custody was warranted due to mother’s interference with father’s visitation rights. The mother appealed this proceeding.
The Appellate Division for the Third Department (an appeals court) upheld the Family Court’s order finding the mother in contempt and changing custody to the father. The Appeals Court found the mother had violated a prior court order with regard to the father’s visitation rights. The court also found the transfer of sole custody of the child to the father was indicated in the circumstances due to the mother’s contentious behavior. The Court found the mother was aware of the terms of the Family Court order giving the father visitation and she intentionally refused to comply with this court order.
The mother had argued she was denied her right to counsel due to the fact she represented herself. However, the appellate court found she was given the opportunity to retain an attorney and declined to do so. The court also found the mother had engaged in obstructionist behavior during the course of the Family Court trial and her responses to questions were evasive.
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the Family Court giving the father sole custody.
Conclusion
This is a major victory for father’s rights! A mother’s obligations when she is the residential custodial parent is to promote a loving, warm relationship between the children and the father. Interference with a father’s visitation rights is appropriate grounds to change custody from the mother to the father.
Parental alienation syndrome, which is often referred to as “PAS”, involves a type of behavior of one parent which is designed to disrupt the relationship between a child or children and the other parent. The deprivation of children of a loving relationship with one parent by the other parent can cause the children to experience psychological distress, and the destruction of the relationship with the other parent. When one parent alienates children from the other, this is a type of child abuse.
The usual first steps of one parent alienating children from another involve the interference with the non-custodial parent’s rights to have visitation and personal contact with the children. The residential custodial parent is technically obligated to foster the relationship with the children and the other parent. However, in PAS situations, instead of working with the other parent to build a harmonious, loving relationship with the children, one parent interferes with the parenting time and communication of the other parent with the children.
Inappropriate Comments
Negative statements made by the residential custodial parent such as the other parent has abandoned us, has cut us off from money, is a bad person, and similar statements confuses the children and has a negative impact on the children’s respect for the other parent. These actions by the residential parent have a subliminal effect in casting the other parent as a bad, evil, inappropriate person. Even when the children want to maintain a relationship with the other parent, the conflict created by the custodial parent between the custodial parent’s representations concerning the other parent and the children’s love and affection for the other parent creates a conflict that children have difficulty dealing with. What the residential parent is actually doing to the children is conveying his or her negative feelings, dislike and hatred of the other parent to the children and convincing the children to adopt those negative feelings.
Repetition
When the custodial parent continually repeats negative statements, and/or negative incidents to the children concerning the other parent, these statements, even if untrue, end up being accepted as factual by the children. The children replace his or her warm, loving experiences with the other parent with false experiences which destroy the relationship with the other parent.
Conclusion
PAS damages children. Parents who hate each other should not confuse their children or subject their children into being brainwashed into believing they hate the other parent too. Children should love and respect both of their parents.
This is a story about an acrimonious divorce between two lawyers, Ira Schacter and Janice Schacter. Ira was a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, a prestigious Manhattan law firm. Janice had gone to law school and worked as an associate at a law firm that handled personal injury cases. She had stopped practicing law after her daughter was born.
The case was presented before Manhattan Supreme Court Judge, Laura Drager. In discussing the case, she referred to it as “one of the most contentious litigations this court has ever presided over.” Judge Drager took into consideration Janice’s bad behavior and awarded her only 17% of Mr. Schacter’s valuable partnership at the Cadwalader law firm. Judge Drager stated in her decision “in essence the wife chose to bite the hand that fed her. Although the court recognizes that the wife feels she was badly treated by the husband, her repeated attacks against him have played a part in a diminishing of his income.”
The attorneys for Mr. Schacter argued his wife’s conduct during the course of the divorce “has so interfered with his ability to retain clients that she actively caused the value of his partnership interest to decline.”
ACS Claims
During the course of their litigation, Ira was the subject of seven separate investigations by the Administration for Children’s Services. ACS investigators visited his home more than 100 times. Each time they investigated him, they found the allegations made by his wife against him were unfounded.
Judge Drager found Janice had been involved in a number of instances creating negative publicity for her husband. She had regularly posted negative information with regard to her husband on websites.
Although Judge Drager only gave the wife 17% of the value of Mr. Schacter’s partnership, the Judge valued the partnership at $4,170,000. Therefore Ms. Schacter’s 17% share was $855,000. In addition, Mr. Schacter paid his wife’s attorneys’ approximately $460,000 and paid $70,000 in the wife’s expert fees. Mrs. Schacter also received a share of the parties’ $4.1 million house located in the Hamptons, a portion of the $4.4 million townhouse in the city, and equitable distribution of Mr. Schacter’s retirement accounts, cars, and other assets.
Conclusion
The judge’s comments about Mrs. Schacter who bit the hand that fed her says it all!
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
