Center for Urban Families in Baltimore Helps Fathers

October 11, 2013 By

fathers rights lawyerBaltimore has a program run by the Center for Urban Families designed to help fathers reestablish relationships with their children. The Center helps fathers find jobs as part of their programs. Since its inception, hundreds of fathers working with the counselors in this program have learned to become more responsible parents and reestablish relationships with children whom they had abandoned.

Joe Jones, the Chief Executive Officer and founder of the program, recently stated “what we want to do is get these people above ground and back into the mainstream.” In addition to helping fathers find jobs, the Center takes action to end what Joe Jones refers to as “the cycle of father absence.” The Center seeks to break the cycle of fathers not being responsible for their children.

Children Raised Without Fathers

In 2012, the American Community Survey which was undertaken by the United States Census Bureau showed approximately 19 million children across the United States live in homes without a father.

Many men who come into the Center grew up in homes without fathers. Studies show children who are raised without fathers have a greater likelihood of parenting children during their teens. In addition, children raised without fathers have higher instances of drug abuse and being involved in criminal activity, pursuant to the National Father Initiative. It is the goal of the Center’s Responsible Fatherhood Program to provide men the support system and the basic tools they need to become responsible parents for their children. The program teaches fathers a variety of parenting skills including how to be financially responsible for their children.

About the Founder – Joe Jones

Joe Jones’ father left when he was 9 years old. Jones became a drug addict. He spent more than 17 years taking drugs, selling drugs and committing crimes to support his drug habit. When Jones was 21 years old he had a son. He took no responsibility for the child. In 1986, Jones was convicted of a variety of drug related criminal offenses. He was placed in a residential rehabilitation program. After completing the program, Jones went to Baltimore City Community College and obtained an Associate’s Degree. He worked for a series of non-profit organizations in Baltimore. During this time he realized there were no programs to help fathers. In 1992, he founded the Men’s Service Program at the Baltimore Department of Health. Seven years later he founded his own non-profit organization, The Center for Urban Families. He took this action because he felt he needed to give something back to the community for helping him restart his life. Jones claims to become a better father, you need to become a better man!

help for fathers

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Fast Track in Nassau County Family Court for Reuniting Parents and Children

October 4, 2013 By

father's rights attorneysNassau County has a new program to reunite children who have been taken away from their parents. This new program was set up by Nassau County Family Court Supervising Judge, Edmond Dane. The program is specifically designed to reunite parents with children under the age of 5. The fast track program is called “Babies Can’t Wait.”

Babies Can’t Wait

The program has been set up in conjunction with the Nassau Family Court, the Nassau County Department of Social Services and Adelphi University’s Institute for Parenting. Adelphi’s parenting institute is a private organization that is designed to promote relationships between children and their parents.

The program is designed to reduce risk, in cases involving either child abuse or child neglect, that children will be harmed. It tries to establish a secure caregiver for infants. There is a preference in the program for biological parents.

The program uses a team approach. The team is comprised of assigned attorneys, family members, an infant mental health specialist from Adelphi, a court facilitator, a deputy County Attorney, and foster care workers who will meet monthly before Judge Dane.

Judge Dane has stated he hopes the new program will be successful in reducing terminations of parental rights. The program also seeks to keep children under the age of 5 out of foster care.

Judge Dane has stated “when a child is taken from a parent, regardless of age, there is trauma.” He further stated “separation affects bonding and attachment especially with babies.” The program is designed to engage parents from the beginning and monitor their progress more often. It is the intent of the program to speed negotiations and result in quicker resolution of infant related cases.

Adelphi University

Adelphi University is providing joint therapy for parents and children. These therapy sessions focus on interaction and care of the children. The therapy sessions allow for additional visitation between the children and the parent.

The Prior Social Service Program Involving Removed Children in Nassau County

Without this program, when the Department of Social Services removes a child from a home, the parent or the child’s guardian has to go to the Family Court and file a petition for a hearing. The Judge then makes a determination at the time of the hearing whether the child faces an imminent danger. If the judge determines that the child faces an imminent danger, the child is not allowed to go home.

The case is then adjourned and a Fact Finding Hearing is held to determine if the child has been abused or neglected. In the event there is a finding of either child abuse or child neglect by the judge an additional hearing called a Dispositional Hearing is held. A Dispositional Hearing can be equated to a sentencing hearing in a criminal case. As a result of these hearings, an investigation is initiated by the Department of Social Services. This investigation takes a number of months and sometimes as long as a year.

Permanency Hearing

After the investigation a Permanency Hearing is held. The purpose of this hearing is to determine long term what shall happen to the child. Should the child be given back to the mother? Should the mother or father’s parental rights be terminated? Should the child be given to a guardian?

Babies Can’t Wait Program

Under Judge Dane’s Babies Can’t Wait program a Fact Finding Hearing is finished in as little as a month and a half. The Permanency Solution for the family would be decided within a year. Judge Dane claims “the longer you let a trial linger the less your chances of success. We want to make sure the focus is on the services rather than the abuse allegation.”

Judge Dane takes the position if the parents deserve it, he wants to give them an opportunity to improve the situation and get back into a relationship with their children.

Hooray for Judge Dane!father's rights assistance

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Grandparents’ Control Over Visitation Upheld

October 2, 2013 By

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

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Internet Downloaded Separation Agreement Found Valid

September 30, 2013 By

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

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Divorce Case: Equitable Distribution After Death

September 27, 2013 By

father's rights attorneysRecently, Supreme Court Justice Stacey Bennett sitting in a Matrimonial Part in Nassau County made a decision in an unusual case. A husband started a divorce lawsuit. He was granted a judgment of divorce in this proceeding. Both parties after the divorce were to submit post trial briefs to the court regarding all outstanding economic issues. Then, the husband committed suicide. The wife claimed suicide didn’t stop the divorce action from going forward because the judgement had already been rendered.

Husband Tries to Deny Wife Equitable Distribution

The husband, a physician, in an attempt to deny his wife and children equitable distribution of millions of dollars in assets and life insurance that he possessed, decided to kill himself. At the time the husband committed suicide he was aware he had advanced brain cancer and did not have a significant time to live. Prior to committing suicide the husband changed the beneficiaries on his $2,000,000 life insurance policy and $3,000,000 in his investment accounts. In violation of the court’s order he changed the beneficiaries from his wife and their son and named his mother, who is the executrix of his estate, and his sister as beneficiaries. The suicide took place after each of the parties had rested their presentation to the court but before a final judgment had been entered.

The legal question presented was whether the suicide abated the divorce (stopped it from moving forward) and prevented the Supreme Court Judge handling the case from making a decision on equitable distribution of the assets.

Judge Bennett held “suicide, like murder, is an intentional act and the husband’s estate should not be able to benefit from it by seeking an equitable remedy.” Judge Bennett went on to write in her decision “consequently in the interest of justice, equity and the efficiency of the Court system, this Court finds the right to equitable distribution in this action survives the husband’s suicidal death.”

The husband’s attorney claimed the case needed to be dismissed because the husband was dead. The dismissal of the case after one of the parties dies is called abatement. However, Justice Stacey Bennett said this case didn’t abate because the divorce had been granted already. Justice Bennett’s decision was that she still had jurisdiction to finalize all the remaining economic and financial issues in this divorce proceeding even though the husband died before equitable distribution took place. Justice Bennett took the position the entry of the divorce itself was merely a ministerial act. The case was to continue even after the husband’s death on the issue of equitable distribution.

Novel Legal Question Presented

The legal question presented to Judge Bennett was a novel question of whether an intentional suicide stops a divorce action and whether the issues that were not resolved prior to the death involving equitable distribution survive the death. Judge Bennett wrote, “here, the husband committed suicide and thus those who now represent his interests come to the court with unclean hands”. Judge Bennett’s position was the suicide was specifically designed to prevent the wife and child from receiving the decedent’s assets. Judge Bennett’s decision said the husband’s committing suicide “demonstrated a nefarious pattern of conduct on part of the husband designed to deprive his wife and children of any assets.”father's rights advocate

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Order of Protection Thrown Out

September 20, 2013 By

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.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Protecting Men’s Rights in a Divorce

September 18, 2013 By

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

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Stay At Home Fathers

August 14, 2013 By

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.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

New York Court Returns Child To Singapore

August 12, 2013 By

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.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , , , , ,

Grandparents’ Rights

August 9, 2013 By

Grandparents have a unique impact on their grandchildren. Children visit with their grandparents. They receive love affection and ties to family relationships from their grandparents. The nurturing relationships grandparents and grandchildren have, provide an additional sense of stability for children that cannot be obtained from other relationships. In cases where grandchildren are the product of homes in turmoil, grandparents are a precious support system for their grandchildren.

Grandparents And Visitation

The issues involving grandparents’ relationships with their grandchildren and how the courts interpret grandparents’ rights to visitation with their grandchildren are based on the concept of what is in the children’s best interest. Should grandparents be deprived of their visitation rights, they have the burden of proving in the Family Court, in the State of New York, it would be in the children’s best interest to maintain a relationship and spend time with the grandparents.

Each case involving visitation rights for grandparents’ is unique. Grandparents who seek to build loving relationships with their grandchildren and have had a past history of visitation and contact with their grandchildren have a greater opportunity to succeed in grandparents’ visitation proceedings.

Prior to bringing a proceeding in the Family Court, the grandparents should lay out a history of contact with their grandchildren to establish periods of prior visitation, gift giving on birthdays and holidays, and other reasonable steps showing they have tried to maintain a relationship with their grandchildren that has been interfered with by either one or both of the children’s parents.

Grandparents Don’t Exist Forever

Grandparents don’t exist forever. They often die as the children grow up. Children should be entitled to at least their memories of a loving relationship they maintained with their grandparents.

About The Author

help for fathers and grandparents rightsElliot S. Schlissel, Esq. has been defending grandparent’s rights for more than 45 years. His law firm also represents fathers in father’s rights cases involving custody and visitation issues.

Filed Under: Fathers Rights Tagged With: , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »