New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: May 5, 2012

New York Court Discusses Custody Battle Where Paternity in Debate

by Stephen Bilkis

On a lovely day in August of 1991, a young mother married a man from Poughkeepsie, New York. At the time of her marriage the woman had a young son who was only a few months old. Shortly after their marriage in 1991, the mother had another son. This son was the biological child of the man from Poughkeepsie. He was born in June of 1994. Unfortunately, the marriage did not last. The couple divorced in April of 1996.

Although, they divorced, the couple continued to have a positive relationship as far as the boys were concerned. The older boy was led to believe that the father was his natural father. This belief has never altered. When the couple divorced, they agreed to continue the father and son relationship that they had maintained while living together for the first six years of the boy’s life. The divorce settlement treated both boys as if the father was the biological father of both of the boys. Therefore, the father agreed in the divorce settlement that he would pay child support for both of the boys, in the sum of $750.00 each per month. Under the custody agreement, neither parent was designated as the primary physical custodian of the children. The children spent an equal amount of time with both the mother and the father. The father never treated the older boy any differently than he did the younger boy who was his biological son.

Published on: May 4, 2012

New York Supreme Court Rules on Custody in Light of Child Abuse Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 4, 2010, a mother requested that the Supreme Court Third Department, of the City of New York Appellate Division review the case of the custody condition of two of her three children. The mother is currently living with her grandmother who is in poor health and her youngest son from a different relationship. They live in a neighborhood which has been defined as having “questionable safety” by testimony of the courts. She depends on her relatives to support her. She has only seen the children a few times since custody of them was awarded to her ex-boyfriend. She has been known to travel to Atlanta, Georgia to visit with the father of her youngest son. [78 A.D.3d 1259] The mother alleges that she is afraid to go to Broome County New York because she is afraid of the father of her first two children. She advised that when she has gone there, they have met in public places. She is seeking a review of her case based on the contention that she is a battered woman. Her contention is made under New York’s domestic violence laws that the Supreme Court has created an Integrated Domestic Violence Part to handle the unique circumstances surrounding cases that have an element of domestic violence. In order for her case to qualify, she would have to prove that there is a preponderance of evidence that point the court to defer to the Supreme Court to evaluate the evidence in this case. While the mother alleged mental abuse and that he had shaken the daughter, the mother had never filed a police report. She had also never filed a complaint in Family Court against the father. The more serious allegations, those of sexual abuse involving the father and the daughter were found to be completely false. The Supreme Court ordered that both children be examined by professionals to determine if they were abused. This appellate section reviewed Supreme Court reports about factual and credibility determinations and determined that the allegations of physical domestic violence in this case were unfounded.

The mother also stated that she did not feel that the courts had given enough credence to her allegations that the father of her first two children had abused her and her daughter. However, in spite of these allegations, the mother did not feel that she was in so much danger when she traveled to New York that she required the father to meet her at a police station. While it is true that the mother’s allegations of domestic violence were discredited in court, she still maintains that she suffered from domestic violence at the hands of the father of her first two children. She stated that she suffered mental abuse and that she had seen him shake their daughter. Both admitted to using corporal punishment, but the mother stated that it was at the insistence of the father. The father stated that as the children have gotten older, the need for corporal punishment has decreased.

Published on: May 3, 2012

New York Court Decides Domestic Violence Case in Light of Inconsistent Testimony by Accuser

by Stephen Bilkis

Marriages are meant to last forever except when it is marred by domestic violence, like what happened to a couple who was married 31 years.

The parties, both Jews, were married in August 1973. On the date of their marriage, the husband was 22 years old and a college graduate while the wife was 18 and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties.

Published on: May 2, 2012

New York Court Rules Against NY Child Services in Child Neglect Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 3, 2010, New York City Child Services filed petitions against two parents pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The petitions charged that the father failed to provide a minimum degree of care to their three children because he committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children and the mother failed to ensure that the children attended school regularly. There is also an insinuation in the wording of the procedural history which states that the “petitions alleged that the mother and father failed to provide a minimum degree of care to their three children since the father committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children.” This wording should have been a red flag. Since the New York City Family Court objective is to keep families together if at all possible and not to hold the victims of domestic abuse responsible for the actions of the abuser in the household.

In this case, the New York City Child Services disregarded all of the guidelines established by the New York City Family Court. Upon the initial filing of the petition, the court granted New York City Child Services request for the removal of the children and directed that the maternal grandmother could care for them. It further ordered that a temporary order of protection be issued against the father and that he was to stay away from the children and maternal grandmother except for supervised visitation. Shortly afterward, the grandmother took the children with her to visit relatives in Pennsylvania. It is clear that New York City Child Services knew about the trip, it is not clear if New York City Child Services authorized it. Needless to say, it did not matter; the children were clearly in safe hands. When the maternal grandmother returned to New York City, she only brought the youngest child back with her. The older school aged children were safe and staying with family members. They were enrolled in school and were happy by all accounts.

Published on: May 1, 2012

by Stephen Bilkis

On August 7, 2009, the Family Court of Kings County New York received a petition for an order of protection. The Order seeks to prevent the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from having contact with him. The petition arises from a situation where the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children got angry with him and on June 19 of 2009 placed several phone calls to the subject. These phone calls were of an insulting, threatening, and harassing nature. The subject is sure that the calls came from the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children. In addition to these phone calls, this subject maintains that the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children has also physically threatened him on at least three other occasions in the last seven months. The subject, a man from Kings County, stated that these occasions have placed him in fear. He fears that live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children will physically harm him in some way. He requests that the court issue this order of protection which would prevent the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from coming close to him. He requests that it limit live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from getting on his property, or place of business, and would prevent him from having any contact at all with this Kings County man. The Kings County man also acts that this petition limit the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from being present while the Kings County man visits with his children. This Kings County man makes this application to New York Family Court in Kings County.

The reason that this petition is of interest is because of the nature of the relationships involved. In order for a case to be considered by the Family Court of Kings County, the party who requests the petition, in this case the Kings County man, and the person with whom the order is directed, in this case the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children, must have a domestic relationship. In this case, the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children have a domestic relationship in that they live together in the same residence and have a romantic relationship together. The Kings County man who is the petitioner on this order of protection has a domestic relationship with the mother of his children in that she is the mother of his children. However, the Kings County man and the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children do not have a domestic relationship as defined in the statutory law.