Internet Downloaded Separation Agreement Found Valid

father's rights lawyerIn a recent case before Justice Leonard Steinman sitting in the Supreme Court Divorce Part in Nassau County, a husband had filed a divorce action against his wife. In this proceeding, he sought to incorporate by reference a separation agreement into the judgement of divorce. The wife argued the agreement should not be allowed to be incorporated into the judgement of divorce. She claimed she was induced by fraud into signing the agreement.

A motion was made to determine whether the agreement was valid. The Court found the agreement was drafted by the wife. She found the agreement on an internet website. After downloading and printing the agreement she presented it to the husband, he executed it.
The agreement had a waiver of spousal maintenance. It also stated there would be “no demand for child support payments”. The agreement required the parties sell the marital home and equally divide the proceeds. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the parties opted out of exchanging financial net worth statements. Neither the husband nor the wife were represented by an attorney during the course of the negotiation and execution of the agreement. However, the parties did properly execute the agreement before a notary public and they filed it with the County Clerk of Nassau County.

The Agreement Terms Were Followed

The Court found that the parties had followed the terms of the agreement after its execution. The Court found the parties had lived separate lives. They did not share a bedroom together. They also filed separate tax returns.

The Court found the separation agreement executed by the wife was not unfair or inequitable. The judge ruled the wife’s claims that the parties did not intend to be bound by the agreement were undercut by “its unambiguous terms.” He made this decision even though the wife waived spousal maintenance in the agreement.

It should be noted, the husband acknowledged that the child support provision does not comply with the Child Support Standards Act. However, he agreed that this could be severed from the agreement and the rest of the agreement could be enforced.

Justice Steinman found the agreement to be valid and incorporated it into the judgement of divorce.

Conclusion

In this case, the wife wanted to have her cake and to eat it too. She drafts an agreement and then decides later on she wants more. Justice Steinman found she was not entitled to a second bite at the apple. This is a case where men’s rights were protected.advocate for father's rights

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

Online Relationship No Basis For Order Of Protection

father's rights order of protectionJudge Heppner, who sits in Brooklyn Family Court, recently ruled an online relationship which ended in a contentious business relationship was not sufficient to meet the standard of an “intimate relationship” requiring the issuance of an Order of Protection by the Family Court in New York. Judge Heppner found the case law establishing an intimate relationship in New York could not be met by a casual online relationship. Judge Heppner found there was not a basis for granting an Order of Protection.

The Relationship

The parties met online and exchanged emails over a period of several months. Shannon and Michael had numerous conversations involving a variety of subjects including Michael’s carpentry skills. Shannon had asked Michael to make several small repairs at her residence. Shannon eventually filed a Family Offense Petition requesting an Order of Protection.

New York Family Court Act section 8.12(e) states “Family offenses which give rise to Orders of Protection can be applied to persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time.” Judge Heppner found the internet communication between Shannon and Michael rendered them “casual acquaintances” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business social context” did not give rise to a relationship envisioned by the legislature related to Orders of Protection in the Family Court.”

Judge Heppner kept the temporary Order of Protection in place for two weeks at the end of the case. She took this action to give Shannon an opportunity to go to the District Attorney’s office for the purpose of pursuing a criminal action against Michael. It should be noted when the Family Court lacks jurisdiction because the parties are not related or they do not have an intimate relationship between them, an individual can still go to the District Attorney’s office and request criminal charges be brought against the other individual and an Order of Protection be granted by the Criminal Court related to these criminal charges.father's rights help

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 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