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.
In divorce situations, cases exist where the mother seeks to do more than just alienate the children from the father. In these cases, the mother takes action to have a negative effect on the father’s life. Examples of actions which can be considered Malicious Mother Syndrome involve making false allegations the father sexually abused the children: taking action to have third parties harass and/or assault the father; making up vicious lies and stories about the father and taking action to have a negative impact on the father’s employment.
Malicious Mother Syndrome goes beyond Parental Alienation Syndrome. The theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome has the mother turning the children against the father. This very often can relate to the mother interfering and/or preventing the father from having visitation or a loving relationship with the children. Malicious Mother Syndrome is different from Parental Alienation Syndrome because this involves attacking other aspects of the father’s life, health and well-being beyond the father’s relationship with the children. Malicious Mother Syndrome involves campaigns against the father. In many cases of Malicious Mother Syndrome, the mother tries to manipulate third parties to hate the father based on information and stories which are untrue or greatly exaggerated.
Inappropriate behavior common to both Malicious Mother Syndrome and Parental Alienation Syndrome involve the following actions taken by the mother
Dealing With Malicious Mother Syndrome
The best way to deal with Malicious Mother Syndrome is to go on the legal offensive. Bring applications to the court showing the judge what the mother is doing and the negative impact it is having on the children and the father’s life. To be successful in these endeavors, it is important to hire an experienced attorney who has the time, the resources, and the knowledge to bring, through litigation, the mother’s improper activities to the court’s attention. If the attorney you are using is unsuccessful or unable to handle the matter, you should find a more experienced, more capable attorney to bring these inappropriate actions to the court’s attention.
Going through a divorce can be very stressful. This is true even when the divorce is settled out of court and not litigated. When the parties to the marriage have children, a parenting plan is often recommended to promote the children’s best interests. Parenting plans deal with issues concerning parenting time, child support, and where the children will live. Parents’ chief concern regarding their children should be their children’s stability and mental and physical health.
After a divorce is concluded, the parents must maintain a high level of communication with regard to their children. Issues such as the children’s schoolwork, their daily routines, their social and sports related schedules, as well as how they are doing in school and their behavior should be discussed between parents. Co-parenting involves parents working together for the health and well being of their children. The following are a variety of suggestions to help parents successfully develop post divorce co-parenting schemes:
Parents who strive to incorporate the aforementioned bullet points into their parenting plans will have a greater level of success in co-parenting their children. The primary beneficiaries of their success will be the health and general welfare of their children. In essence, parents simply need to put their love of their children over and above all other needs and conflicts between each other.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. Elliot has been representing parents in child custody, CPS and ACS investigations and other family matters for more than 45 years. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net. The phones are monitored 24/7.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. He has been representing fathers in child custody matters, visitation issues and all other aspects of Family Law 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.
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 fathers in custody proceedings, visitation agreements, and all aspects of matrimonial law and family law. He can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”) filed a neglect proceeding in Kings County Family Court. Their petition alleged the mother did not provide her child with adequate medical care. In addition, the petition claimed the child lacked appropriate supervision. They claimed the mother left the child in the care of an inappropriate caregiver.
The case was submitted to Judge Lillian Wan who sits in the Family Court of Kings County. Judge Wan found ACS did not establish the allegations appropriately. Her decision stated no medical records were presented to the court. There was no proof submitted to the court with regard to the child’s alleged medical problems. Although the mother had made a statement the child had chronic heart disease and the child had been treated by both a pulmonologist and a cardiologist in 2012, without further care, was insufficient to show the mother had neglected the child’s medical needs. Judge Wan went on further to state no evidence of any type was submitted to the court which showed the child was required to have further medical care.
Improper Guardianship
Judge Wan found there was no evidence submitted of improper guardianship by the mother. Judge Wan stated the mother was on leave from her job and home during this period of time with her child. Judge Wan dismissed ACS’ petition. She found based on the evidence submitted, ACS had failed to prove their case regarding inadequate medical care or lack of proper supervision by the mother.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney who was has been representing fathers in paternity cases for more than 45 years. Elliot and his staff of attorneys handle divorce cases, child custody and visitation, and all aspects of family law proceedings. 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.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney with more than 35 years of experiencing representing fathers in divorce, child custody and visitation proceedings. 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.
Child Protective Services is extremely aggressive on Long Island with regard to situations involving parents who use corporal punishment on their children. In a recent case, an appeals court found with regard to a Suffolk County father who spanked his son, that his actions were not inappropriate and this did not constitute child neglect.
In October of 2012, a father spanked his 8 year old son when he cursed at an adult during a party at a friend’s home. The father was reported to Child Protective Services. In March of 2013, in a proceeding in the Family Court of Suffolk County a ruling was made against the father finding he had neglected his child. The Department of Social Services claimed he had spanked his child with an open hand at the party. When they returned home from the party, they claimed he struck his son on the legs, arms and buttocks with a belt.
Family Court Proceedings
During the Family Court proceeding the father admitted he had spanked his son at the party. He denied he struck his son with a belt when they returned home. The father appealed the ruling of the Suffolk County Family Court to the Appellate Division of the Second Department (an Appeals Court located in Brooklyn).
Appeals Court
The Appeals Court held “the father’s open handed spanking of the child as a form of discipline after he heard the child curse at an adult was a reasonable use of force and, under the circumstances presented here, did not constitute excessive corporal punishment.”
As a result of the Appeals Court ruling, the original neglect decision by the Family Court was dismissed. The evidence presented in Family Court, at a fact finding hearing, was not sufficient to prove the son had been struck by the father with a belt.
Conclusion
Child Protective Services on Long Island is extremely aggressive with regard to investigating and prosecuting parents who appropriately discipline their children with spankings when the circumstances require it.
Most parents assume when they are investigated by Child Protective Services they have to cooperate. This isn’t true. The investigators for Child Protective Services are looking for evidence usually to convict the parent of child abuse and/or child neglect, not to find the incident did not take place. The best route to take when contacted by Child Protective Services is to immediately contact an attorney experienced in handling child abuse and child neglect cases.
Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick, Bellmore
