To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with nearly 40 years experience representing fathers in all aspects of family law. He and his associates are available 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 father’s rights attorney. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802. He can also be contacted by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
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.
Please view today’s blog video by clicking on the following link:
Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a father’s rights attorney. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
Elliot S. Schlissel, Family Law Attorney 1-800-344-6431; or schlissel.law@att.net
The Complaint Made Against YouIf a Child Protective Services (hereinafter referred to as “CPS”) investigator comes to your home it is because a complaint has been made against you. Your first question to the worker should be what is the nature of the complaint that was made against you.
The CPS worker conducts an investigation and a report is made. Copies of these reports can be obtained from the supervising agency of the CPS in Albany. On the basis of the report made by a CPS worker, a decision will be made as to whether the allegations against you are “founded” or “unfounded”. “Founded” allegations means you have been engaged in some type of child abuse or child neglect. In these situations you are entitled to demand a trial to challenge the validity of a finding made against you. At a trial witnesses will be called and your attorney will be able to examine the Child Protective Services worker with regard to the material contained in their report and the evidence that this material is based on.
Protecting Your Interests and The Interests of Your Children
The Child Protective Services agency exists for the sole purpose of protecting children. However, in recent years they have become overly zealous in their approach to investigating allegations of child abuse and child neglect. In many situations, allegations are frivolous, false, or don’t amount to child abuse or child neglect. However, in some of these cases the overly aggressive CPS worker can find you have acted inappropriately towards your children. The very best way of dealing with this situation is to immediately contact an attorney experienced in handling CPS investigations, and hearings. Should you have questions regarding a CPS investigation, feel free to contact our office. Our phones are monitored 24/7 and we offer free office consultations.
In the case of Steineger v. Perkins, special referee Louis Crespo sitting in a Family Court Part in New York County had a case before him in which a plaintiff wife alleged that her husband had failed to produce documents necessary for the prosecution of divorce and therefore should not be allowed to present evidence with regard to financial issues regarding the case. The wife brought an application to preclude the husband from offering any evidence or testimony of any type at the trial concerning financial issues. In addition, she brought an application for attorney’s fees and monetary sanctions against the husband. She claimed the marital estate held millions of dollars in it. She also claimed the defendant’s allegations that these funds were his separate property was untrue.
The defendant husband took the position that yes he had millions of dollars in separate assets. These assets were all accumulated prior to his marriage to the plaintiff and were not subject to equitable distribution in a divorce.
Special Referee Crespo, in his decision, found the testimony of the wife, plaintiff, did not support her claim her husband had intentionally failed to produce documentation of his assets. He also didn’t find she had been prejudiced by the husband’s actions. Special Referee Crespo reached the decision the wife did not meet her burden of proof in showing her husband had purposely or willfully failed to produce documents or that he was engaging in the type of conduct which would prevent him giving testimony or introducing evidence at the time of trial. The court noted in its decision since the wife had not met her burden of proof she was not entitled to preclude the husband’s introduction of financial testimony into evidence. In addition she was not entitled to either attorney’s fees or monetary sanctions against the husband.
Conclusion
If you cooperate with the court and provide the appropriate information, courts won’t punish you.
Elliot S. Schlissel represents fathers in custody cases and with regard to issues regarding child support. He has been referred to as the dad’s attorney.
A husband brought an application to rescind and declare null and void the portions of a parties’ settlement agreement which dealt with child support. He claimed the amount of child support in the settlement agreement was unsustainable and overreaching. The wife in this case brought a cross application to declare that the agreement was enforceable.
Judge Lawrence Ecker sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in Westchester County stated in his decision the agreement was negotiated over a period of years. There was a mediation concerning issues involving custody, child support, equitable distribution, and spousal maintenance.
The husband presented arguments that he was not properly advised that a court could cap child support payments. The attorneys for the wife claimed the husband did not properly assert allegations of fraud or duress in his motion to set aside the settlement agreement and therefore he was actually arguing that he was misled by the mediator and his attorney.
Husband Participated in Negotiations
The court took into consideration the husband was a smart businessman and a financial expert. Judge Ecker found the husband participated in the negotiation of the settlement agreement. The husband’s emails were presented in support of these allegations.
Judge Ecker also noted in his decision there was no obligation for a judge to cap the combined parental income at $136,000 or any other specific amount. The court in its decision found the husband had obtained competent counsel. His attorney had actively participated in negotiations with regard to the settlement agreement. The husband had voluntarily entered into the agreement and the agreement was valid and enforceable. The court rejected the husband’s claim in its entirety. The court held the wife had established she was entitled to a judgment of divorce, the stipulation of settlement was valid and enforceable and therefore granted her summary judgment motion for a divorce.
Conclusion
The husband made a good try at setting aside the agreement but unfortunately his argument was weak and not substantiated by statutes or caselaw.
An issue was presented as to whether a Family Court judge could modify a Criminal Court Order of Protection. The reasons for modifying the Order of Protection did not relate to custody or visitation issues. Upon review, the Family Court stated they did not have the authority to modify this Order of Protection.
An Order of Protection had been issued by a Family Court Judge in Westchester County. The husband was required to stay away from the wife and the marital residence. However, the Family Court Order had a provision which authorized the husband to live in a basement apartment located at the marital residence. There was a claim the husband violated the Order of Protection. A Town Justice had issued a new Criminal Court Order of Protection. This Order of Protection prevented him from having any contact whatsoever with his wife. Within the confines of this Criminal Order of Protection there was terminology which required that he stay away from her home. Unfortunately for the husband, the Criminal Court Order of Protection did not state he had a right to continue residing in the basement apartment located at the marital residence.
Family Court Refuses to Intercede Regarding Criminal Court Order of Protection
The husband brought an Order to Show Cause to the Family Court. He asked the Family Court to intervene and allow him to move back into the basement apartment at the marital residence. The Family Court issued an order saying it did not have authority to modify the Criminal Court Order. The Family Court took the position they could only modify Orders of Protection that dealt with custody and visitation issues concerning children of the parties.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. For more than 35 years, Elliot and his aggressive, dedicated attorneys have been representing fathers regarding orders of protection, child support, child custody and visitation issues throughout the Metropolitan New York area.
There was a recent article in the New York Times, Sunday Edition, which stated super achieving moms on Wall Street have house husbands. This article examined the phenomenon of stay at home husbands. The article stated there has been a thousand percent increase since 1980 in the number of women working in finance on Wall Street who have stay at home spouses. The article pointed out the stay at home spouses allowed the women to be successful without having the responsibility of maintaining their household and raising their children.
It is not unusual for successful women who work in large law firms to rely on a man to help take care of the children, deal with the family’s meals, and supervise the household chores. It is common for partners in large New York City law firms to either be single or to be married to someone who relieves them of their responsibilities in the home.
Successful women are sometimes embarrassed to admit their significant others are raising their children and maintaining their home. There are a variety of reasons for this. They are concerned in the event of a break up of the relationship their significant other will get custody of the children.
When a woman is the primary breadwinner, and the man maintains the home and takes care of the children, there is a change in gender roles. In some of these cases, men are reluctant to acknowledge they have exchanged the roles played by them and their female companion. However, in an economy where jobs are hard to find, the house husband should be grateful he has a very successful wife, or significant other, earning enough money to pay all of the family’s bills and to maintain the family at a reasonable standard of living.
Conclusion
Family life requires sacrifices. If one spouse is the primary breadwinner, it is not unreasonable for the other spouse to maintain the household and help raise the children.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. He has been representing fathers in divorces and 
child custody cases and child support cases for more than 35 years.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
