August 10th, 2011
In 1991, Kristine Cushing killed her four and eight year old daughters. She was tried for these murders and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Her defense counsel claimed that she murdered her children due to a bad reaction to Prozac. Kristine spent four years in a mental institution. In addition, she had ten years of psychiatric monitoring. She received an unconditional release in 2005 from the State of California.
Kristine Cushing has now moved back in with her former husband, John P. Cushing. John had two children with Theresa Conlin. Their sons are 13 and 14 years of age. The 13 year old lives with Mr. Cushing. Since Theresa Conlin has moved back in with Mr. Cushing, he also lives with a convicted murderer, who murdered her two children. This does not sit well with the 13 year old boy’s mother, Trisha Conlin.
Theresa Goes to Court in California
Theresa has brought a proceeding in the King County Superior Court to prevent her sons from spending time alone with a convicted murderer. Mr. Cushing originally lied to Theresa. He advised her that he was not living with his ex-wife.
In the court proceedings, Mr. Cushing’s attorney stated that Miss Cushing was temporarily insane and didn’t know what she was doing. They are taking a position that she has recovered from this temporary insanity and presents no immediate threat to children.
In June, Miss Conlin received a court order giving her full custody of both of her sons for a period of 30 days. The court advised her that she would have to make a showing on the next court date why this new parenting plan should become permanent. She is still dropping off her sons to spend time with the Cushings on Sundays. Query: Should an ex-murderer be allowed to be alone with children?
Mothers and fathers have rights when dealing with issues concerning their children. Children should be kept in a safe environment. They should not be subject to child abuse or neglect.
The law offices of Elliot Schlissel have been representing parents in matrimonial and family law matters for more than 30 years. We have developed an expertise in dealing with divorce, orders of protection, child custody and visitation. We litigate changing child custody, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony) and issues involving paternity. We also negotiate prenuptial and post nuptial agreements on behalf of our clients. We are especially adept in dealing with parental alienation issues and parental alienation syndrome. Call us for a free consultation.
July 26th, 2011
Divorce rates for women in the military is double the divorce rate for men in the military. Approximately 8% of the women in the Armed Services of the United States obtained a divorce in 2010. Only 3% of the men in the military were divorced in that year. Dr. Benjamin Carney, a psychology professor at UCLA, conducted a study of divorce rates among military families between 1996 and 2005. This study showed that divorce rates for women in the military were 2 to 3 times higher than divorce rates for men. Dr. Carney has two theories as to why the divorce rates for women are higher. First is that the Armed Services are designed for military families that have civilian wives. The Armed Services is not designed to deal with families where the husband is the civilian. Marriages between men, who are in civilian life and women who have military careers have the highest potential of ending in a divorce. Men who have chosen military careers have civilian wives in 90% of the marriages. However, women in the military have a majority of spouses that are also in the military service. Professor Carney also sees gender role reversals as an additional reason for the disparity between the divorce rates for men and women in the Armed Services.
Conclusion: If the Armed Services is going to be a more attractive place for women, action must be taken to help them maintain and keep their marriages going.
New York and Long Island Divorce Lawyers
The Law Office of Elliot Schlissel handles all types of divorces. We represent individuals in the service as well as men and women in civilian life. We litigate divorce issues involving divorce grounds and family law related matters. We represent our clients concerning orders of protection, child custody, child abuse and child neglect matters. We negotiate separation agreements, pre nuptial and post nuptial agreements on behalf of our clients. We litigate issues involving mother’s rights and father’s rights. We help our clients deal with the division of property in divorces and we also work towards amicable resolution of divorce issues. Feel free to call us for a free consultation
May 27th, 2011
James C. was convicted in 2007 of patronizing under age prostitutes. As a result of this conviction, a Dutchess County Social Worker and Family Court Judge had him removed from his home in Poughkeepsie for a period of three years. James spent a year in jail. After spending a year in jail, he pled guilty in New York County to second-degree rape of a fourteen-year-old girl. He also pled guilty to patronizing a seventeen-year-old prostitute.
The Appellate Division (an Appeals Court) reversed the Family Court ruling in 2010 that prevented him from seeing his children. By that time, his wife and four children had moved to Canada.
New York Court of Appeals
James C. told New York’s highest court that he did not present a danger to his children. He argued that the county officials were mistaken when they reached a conclusion that allowing him to return home from jail would constitute child neglect by him and his wife. James is currently waiting for a decision from the Court of Appeals as to whether he can see his children.
The Law Office of Elliot Schlissel has been protecting fathers’ rights for more than thirty years. We litigate divorce proceedings, orders of protection, child abuse and child neglect cases, ACS and CPS problems, and we actively litigate all types of issues involving child support, visitation and custody.
May 25th, 2011
A proceeding was brought by a mother in Nassau County Supreme Court by Judge Falanga to hold her children’s father in civil contempt. The mother alleged the father, who was awarded custody of their child, had refused to make reasonable accommodations related to her Orthodox Jewish religious practices. She argued that her Orthodox Jewish observence requirements prevented her from driving to pick up and drop off the child. She alleged there were numerous Jewish holidays that fell on her Wednesday visitation days.
Prior Court Order
Judge Falanga took note that there had been a previous order making the father aware of the importance of maintaining a relationship between the mother and the child. However, Judge Falanga did not grant the mother’s application to find the father in contempt. The father suggested that an alternative to the Wednesday visitation, the mother have visitation with the child on Tuesdays. He claimed the mother refused to accept his offer of Tuesday visitation.
Judge Falanga found that although the father’s actions disrupted the visitation routine between the mother and the child his conduct did not rise to the level of being contemptuous. He stated “while visitation was a most precious right the child corresponding need to have normal socialization and age appropriate activities could not be held hostage to a very occasional and intermitant inability of the mother to visit. The mother’s motion to hold father in contempt was denied. Hooray for Judge Falanga!
Fathers’ Rights Law Firm in Nassau County
We litigate all types of father’s rights issues. We represent fathers in Nassau County, Kings County, Queens County and throughout the Metropolitan New York area. We litigate equitable distribution issues, spousal abuse, child support, child visitation, child custody and orders of protection. We protect our clients from allegations of child abuse.
We fight paternity proceedings in the family court. We deal with parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome cases. When the mother seeks to relocate the children making it difficult for fathers to have visitation, we litigate relocation problems. In amicable situations we negotiate separation agreement for our clients. When our clients lose their jobs or have reductions in their income we bring proceedings to reduce their child support obligations. We’re a full service father’s rights law firm. Our experience in the father’s rights area can help you in your case. Call us for a free consultation.
May 25th, 2011
James C. was convicted in 2007 of patronizing under age prostitutes. As a result of this conviction, a Dutchess County Social Worker and Family Court Judge had him removed from his home in Poughkipsee for a period of three years.
James, he spent a year in jail. After spending a year in jail he plead guilty in New York County to second degree rape of a 14 year old. He also pleaded guilty to patronizing a seventeen year old prostitute. The Appellate Division (an Appeals Court) reversed the Family Court ruling in 2010 that prevented him from seeing his children. By that time his wife and four children had moved to Canada.
New York Court of Appeals
James C. told New York’s highest court that he did not present a danger to his children. He argued that the County Officials were mistaken when they reached a conclusion that allowing him to return home from jail would constitute child neglect by him and his wife.
James is currently waiting for a decision from the Court of Appeals as to whether he can see his children.
Fathers’ Rights Attorneys in New York
The law office of Elliot Schlissel have been protecting father’s rights for more than thirty years. We litigate divorce proceedings, orders of protection, child abuse and child neglect cases, ACS and CPS child abuse allegations and we actively litigate all types of child abuse defense work.
We also represent our clients in no-fault divorces, regarding paternity issues, child custody, child visitation, child support and spousal maintenance (alimony) issues. Feel free to call us for a free consultation.
May 19th, 2011
Supreme Court Justice Daniel Palmari recently disqualified Jeffrey S. Stephens from representing Edward Scannapieco, pursuant to a New York ethics rule that bars an attorney from working as an advocate in a case when his presence may have a “significant issue effect.”
Justice Palmari found that attorney Stephens of Greenwich, Connecticut, had “testified because he had submitted an affirmation to the court indicating the facts related to the execution of an undisclosed pre-nuptial agreement.” The pre-nuptial agreement is being contested by Machiell Scannapieco.
Justice Palmari stated his decision, “counsel here was a major participant in the event, as such his testimony is relevant to significant factual issues.” Mr. & Mrs. Scannapieco were married December 30, 1989. Mrs. Scannapieco filed for divorce in 2010.
Mr. Scannapieco brought a proceeding to deny his wife spousal maintenance. He indicated in his motion that there was a November, 1989 pre-nuptial agreement that limited Mrs. Scannapieco’s right to obtain spousal maintenance. He initially was unable to locate the document, but he found it shortly prior to bringing the application to the court.
Attorney Stephens stated in his court papers, “he prepared the agreement, negotiated the changes with an unidentified attorney representing the plaintiff-wife and he only recently found it in storage.”
Justice Palmari indicated in his decision that the application of the pre-nuptial agreement will have to wait until the discovery process in the divorce proceeding is concluded. But since attorney Stephens may be a witness in this proceeding, he cannot represent one of the litigants. Justice Palmari stated, in referring to an earlier Nassau County decision, “that the preventing of an attorney from representing a litigant in a case where the lawyer may be a witness prevents any unfairness from arising from the lawyer’s opportunity to present his case twice.”
Justice Palmari indicated in his decision that since the case was in the initial stages, the elimination of Mr. Stephens from representing Mr. Scannapieco will not create a “substantial hardship.”
The law office of Elliot Schlissel has been litigating fathers’ rights matters for more than thirty years. We have extensive experience in representing fathers in divorce proceedings, regarding orders of protection, concerning issues involving child custody, child visitation, child support and spousal maintenance (alimony). We have litigated child abuse and child neglect proceedings on behalf of fathers involving Child Protective Services and Association for Child Services. We have brought proceedings requesting the reduction of child support for fathers. We can assist fathers concerning no-fault divorce issues, equitable distribution of assets, family relocation problems, as well as negotiating separation agreements. We are also very knowledgeable concerning the parental alienation of children by mothers. Feel free to call us at your earliest convenience should you need a fathers’ rights attorney. Our phone numbers are 1-800- 344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.
May 6th, 2011
The United States Supreme Court recently had before them the case of Camreta v. Green, 131 S. Ct. 456 (2010). In this case, the issue presented was whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires government officials to obtain a search warrant or parental permission before they can interrogate a suspected child abuse victim. The second issue was whether an official who fails to obtain a search warrant or permission of the parents can be held liable for violation of civil rights laws.
Child Protection Agencies claim that they need to investigate abuse cases without giving prior notification to the possible perpetrators of these acts. In this case, the social worker, Bob Camreta, conducted an interrogation of a child at the child’s school. This was done without a warrant. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that this warrantless interrogation violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the child. The court also stated that Mr. Camreta was protected by a qualified immunity from being held personally liable for civil damages under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Law.
Here’s how the system works in New York: Someone files a complaint with the New York State Child Protective Services (CPS). A local investigator comes to the house and insists on seeing the child. If the parent or guardian refuses to let the investigator see the child, the investigator claims he’s going to get a court order. He threatens to take the child away from the parents. Although the Child Protection Agency seeks to protect children, in New York, they often violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the parents and the child.
We protect fathers’ rights in divorce situations. We litigate spousal maintenance issues (alimony), child support, child custody, child visitation and we deal with the equitable distribution of property issues in divorces. We also negotiate separation agreements on behalf of our clients. Should the mother seek to leave the state with the child, we litigate relocation problems.
When our clients lose their jobs or have reduced income, we bring applications to reduce child support payments. We also educate our clients with regard to the new no-fault divorce law. In contested, nasty divorces, we deal with issues involving parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome caused by one parent making negative statements about the other parent to the children. Should you have a Family Court or divorce issue, feel free to call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.
May 5th, 2011
Judge Greenberg, sitting in the Family Court of Nassau County, rendered a decision on January 21, 2010, dismissing child abuse proceedings against a father. The petition against the father alleged that he had committed sexual offenses regarding his daughter Isabella. The charges alleged he would rub lotion on her, “slap her butt” and “whistle at her.”
The father denied all of the allegations. There was testimony by a psychologist at the time of trial. The psychologist stated that Isabella admitted to lying and sometimes believing her own lies. The psychologist also stated that Isabella had difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality.
Sexual Abuse Allegations are Unsupported
Judge Greenberg found the Department of Social Services did not establish that the father had sexually abused his daughter. The court’s decision indicated that Isabella’s statements were motivated by her desire to live on Long Island. The child did not want to move to the father’s residence in Queens. Isabella’s testimony was inconsistent and not credible. The court believed the testimony was an effort to stop the father from being successful in his custody application.
The law office of Elliot Schlissel litigates fathers’ rights issues. We have extensive experience in handling the following fathers’ rights related matters: divorce; orders of protection; child support; child custody; visitation; spousal maintenance (alimony); child abuse, child neglect; CPS and ACS proceedings; applications to reduce child support; child abuse defense hearings; paternity and no-fault divorce issues. We also litigation equitable distribution matters in divorces and grandparents’ rights issues. Feel free to call us for a free consultation.
April 29th, 2011
Justice Janowitz, sitting in the Supreme Court located in Nassau County, New York, recently made a decision in the case of Jill G. vs. Jeffery G, 202923-10 (March 18th). The wife in this case claimed that the temporary, non-taxable maintenance payments she was receiving were inadequate. The wife was receiving $10,783 per month. This award was based on the presumptive amount of maintenance that has to be paid by one spouse to another, which maintains a current cap on only the first $500,000 of annual income. The wife claimed that the presumptive award was inadequate. She claimed that she had a child with physical disabilities. Her child had additional medical expenses, she claimed, due to these disabilities. Judge Janowitz carefully looked at the wife’s net worth statement (financial statement). He stated his opinion that this net worth statement did not reflect that there were extraordinary expenses that the wife was facing. He also found that the wife had received $450,000 in an infant compromise related to a personal injury award for this child.
The court stated in it’s decision that under New York Domestic Relations Law section 236B(5-a), the “pendente lite” (pending litigation) of spousal maintenance awards must comport with the new guidelines issued on October 12, 2010. To convince a court to deviate from these guidelines, the court must find that the pendente lite maintenance amount was unjust or inappropriate. In this case, Justice Janowitz felt that $10,783 per month in non-taxable pendente lite maintenance is a fair and reasonable award. Fathers’ rights were preserved in this case!
Fathers have legal rights in matrimonial and family law proceedings. We aggressively protect fathers’ rights. We litigate all aspects of divorce proceedings. We represent fathers involving orders of protection, child custody matters, child visitation proceedings, child support proceedings, spousal maintenance proceedings (alimony), as well as child abuse and child neglect proceedings. We bring proceedings to reduce child support when fathers have had a reduction in their income or a loss of their job. We present defenses to child abuse cases. We litigation paternity related proceedings. In addition, we represent fathers concerning equitable distribution of assets, as well as negotiating separation agreements. Call us for a free consultation. We are available seven days a week. Our phone numbers are 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.
April 25th, 2011
Sharon McDonough may permanently lose custody of her children! Sharon McDonough has been found guilty in Suffolk County, New York, of torturing and killing pets. She raised her children in what has been referred to as horrid conditions. Judge C. Randall Hinrich’s sentenced Ms. McDonough to two years in jail. He stated that her crimes were absolutely horrific. Her behavior has been referred to as sinister and evil.
Children Sleeping in Filth
The investigation concerning Ms. McDonough’s household found that her daughter slept in what can be only described as filthy conditions. Her children were forced to watch her torturing and abusing animals. Ms. McDonough choked a maltese dog to death. She did this in front of her ten year old daughter in June of 2006.
Son Turns in His Mother
Sharon McDonough had a son named Douglas. When he moved out of the home, he turned her into Rescue Inc., an animal rescue organization. He advised the animal rescue organization that he was concerned for the safety and well being of his sisters. Sharon McDonough is an embarrassment. Hopefully, she will receive counseling in prison to deal with her violent, abusive, sadistic behavior.
The law office of Elliot Schlissel has been representing individuals in family related matters for more than thirty years. We represent our clients concerning separation agreements, annulments, pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements, child abuse and child neglect cases, as well as child custody matters. We litigate orders or protection in the family court. We represent clients in all aspects of divorce proceedings including, but not limited to, divorce grounds, equitable distribution and high net worth issues. Call us at 1-800-3446431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 if you need a matrimonial or family law attorney in the Metropolitan New York area.