To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney in the Metropolitan New York area. He and his associates have been father’s rights advocates for more than 45 years. He can be reached for consultation by calling 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel has been representing fathers for more than 45 years in all aspects of family law, child custody litigation and divorce law. He and his associates are available for consultation. To schedule a consultation, please call 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or send an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Courts usually do not render court orders ordering joint custody. Parents can work out joint custody agreements, but these usually have to be worked out out of court. In an unusual case, a court attorney referee in Nassau County Supreme Court recently rendered a decision which granted both parents joint legal and physical custody of the children. She rendered this decision because she felt it was in the children’s best interests.
In this case the mother and father each sought sole custody of the two minor children of the parties in their divorce lawsuit. An attorney was appointed to represent the children. This attorney for the children took the position the father was better suited to manage the children’s educational needs.
Equal Parenting Time
The parents had previously entered into a temporary parenting schedule which gave each parent virtually equal parenting time with the parties’ two sons. Referee McCormick referred to the New York State Court of Appeals case of Braiman v. Braiman with regard to the issue of joint custody. This case noted joint custody was inappropriate when both parties were “embattled and embittered.” However, it did not prevent courts from ordering joint custody in all cases.
Referee McCormick found the evidence set forth that both parents were actively involved in their children’s lives. Both of the boys enjoyed spending time with each of their parents. She also found that both parents sought to encourage the relationship between the boys and the other parent. She found the parents lived in close proximity to each other and therefore joint custody was a feasible solution to this case. Referee McCormick found both parents should have a decision making role for their children. She also found the parents should each have about an equal amount of parenting time with the parties’ children. Court Attorney McCormick went on to award joint physical and legal custody to both of the children’s parents based on the fact it was in the children’s best interests.
Conclusion
This is an unusual decision. Courts rarely order joint custody in situations where the parties cannot amicably work out joint custody arrangements on their own. Court Attorney McCormick’s decision is well reasoned and appropriate in this case.
In a case before Onondaga Family Court Judge Michael Hanuszczak, a father sought a change in custody due to the mother violating a custody order by preventing him from having access to the parties’ child for a period in excess of one month. He specifically requested physical custody be changed from the mother to him. The mother had brought her own application to the Family Court. She sought a modification of the current custody order from joint custody to sole custody for her.
During the course of the proceedings, the mother acknowledged she had violated the prior custody order by withholding the child from the father. She stated she took this action because the exchanges of the child between the father and the mother had become violent. Judge Michael Hanuszczak found the mother had willfully violated the order of custody. The judge took the position there was enough credible testimony with regard to the change in circumstances warranting a change of the prior custody arrangement. He held the breakdown and deterioration of the parental relationship between the mother and the father was itself a change of circumstances justifying a modification of the custody order.
Father To Provide a More Stable Environment for Child
The judge reached a decision whereby joint custody was no longer viable due to the lack of communication and the hostility between the father and the mother. The judge found the father could provide a more stable environment for the parties’ child. The judge took into consideration that even though the father was unemployed he had stable housing and a family support system. The judge found the mother’s inappropriate behavior during the course of the exchanges of the child and her willful violation of the prior custody order by preventing the father from having parental time with his child was detrimental to the child’s best interests. Judge Hanuszczak therefore awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child.
Conclusion
If you find yourself in a situation where the child’s mother is disobeying a custody order which granted you parenting time with your child, you can bring a proceeding to change custody. Children have two parents and both parents have a right to have a relationship with their children.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 45 years of experience representing fathers in custody proceedings. He and his associates handle all aspects of family law and divorce litigation. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
This is a story about two young parents who had a daughter in 2003. Shortly after the daughter was born, the child’s mother agreed to have the maternal grandmother raise the child in Franklin County, New York. This gave the mother the opportunity to go away to college. While the mother was attending college, she visited her daughter sometimes on weekends, holidays, and on school vacations.
The child’s father had enlisted in the military before his daughter was born. He was twice deployed in Iraq. Due to his deployment overseas he rarely saw his daughter. When he was discharged from the military in 2007, the father worked out an arrangement with the maternal grandmother whereby he would have a regular visitation schedule with his daughter. During this period of time he was able to reestablish his relationship with her.
Family Court Custody Proceeding
When the mother returned to New York in 2011, the grandmother moved out of state. A proceeding was brought in the Family Court concerning the custody of the parties’ daughter. The Family Court awarded the parties’ joint legal custody, however the father was named as the residential custodial parent of his daughter. The mother was unhappy with the decision of the Family Court and she appealed to the Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court. The Appellate Division affirmed the prior order of the Family Court. The court took into consideration the mother waited more than 2 years before she sought custody of her daughter. They found this action of the mother was “the most discerning factor” concerning whether or not she should be given residential custody. The appeals court also found the mother did not reestablish herself back into her daughter’s life in Franklin County for the purpose of avoiding the relocation of the child.
Conclusion
Fathers who love their children and are willing to make sacrifices to reestablish relationships with their children can prevail and obtain residential custody.
Ibrahim was charged in Bronx County Criminal Court with endangering the welfare of a child. The child in question was his nephew. His attorney moved for dismissal of the charges against him because they were facially insufficient.
An informant had seen a small child seated on the first floor fire escape and there were no adults supervising the child. The informant looked around for nearly an hour and could not find a parent or guardian who would supervise the child. Thereafter, the informant called the police.
The police picked up the child and brought the child to the police station. Sometime thereafter Ibrahim arrived at the police station. He advised the police he was the child’s uncle.
Application To Dismiss The Criminal Charges
Ibrahim, in his application to dismiss the criminal charges against him, argued the Complaint against him was facially insufficient because it did not document that he had either custody or control of the child at the time and place of the alleged incident.
The District Attorney’s office claimed the charge did not require they show a relationship between the defendant and the child. They claimed the fact that Ibrahim appeared at the police station, acknowledged he was the child’s uncle and sought to take the child was sufficient to support the allegations of endangering the welfare of this child. The court did not agree with the prosecutors. The judge found there were no facts alleged by the District Attorney’s office showing the child was under Ibrahim’s care and control on the first floor fire escape. The judge went on further to state in his decision the prosecutors had an obligation to establish Ibrahim was in charge of watching his nephew. The prosecutors did not show he was responsible for his nephew on the date of the incident. He therefore could not be held liable for endangering the welfare of the child. Since the prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof, the case was dismissed.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. He represents fathers with regard to allegations of child abuse and child neglect brought by Child Protective Services (CPS) or the Administration for Child Services (ACS).
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer. Elliot has been representing fathers in child support hearings, custody proceedings, and all aspects of matrimonial law and family law for more than 35 years. Elliot and his associates may be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
A mother had brought a Family Court proceeding requesting sole custody of the parties’ child. The parties had initially been granted joint legal and shared custody of their child. They had also agreed to a “corrected” custody order. The Family Court after a fact finding hearing rendered a decision which found the father had twice violated the prior joint custody order. The Family Court therefore ordered the mother have sole legal and physical custody. The court had noted the father had failed to comply, pursuant to his own testimony, with the provisions of the joint custody order. The court therefore found they should not disturb the finding he was in willful violation of the court order. Based on this willful violation, the Family Court granted the mother’s petition giving her sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child.
The father had appealed the Family Court’s decision. The Appellate Division of the Third Department, an appeals court, found the relationship between the mother and the father was not so acrimonious as to prevent them from having joint custody. The appeals court also noted the father’s basis for seeking sole custody stemmed not from an expressed inability to get along with the mother but was instead related to her stability. She had documented mental health and alcohol dependency issues. The appeals court in its decision stated neither the father nor the mother showed a sufficient change in circumstances which would cause the modification of the original custody order. The Family Court was therefore mistaken in awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother. The appeals court reinstated the original joint custody order and sent the case back to the Family Court to work out the details.
Conclusion
Courts are becoming more and more attuned to protecting father’s rights to maintain relationships with their children.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney who has been helping fathers maintain relationships with their children for more than 45 years. He and his associates represent fathers in all aspects of matrimonial and family law. Elliot can be reached for consultation by calling 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
