The Elliot Schlissel New York Law Blog

Have men’s rights in Family Courts become a civil rights matter? Do men need to band together to protect their rights that are being abused in Family Courts? Is there an inherent bias against men in the Family Courts? Do Family Courts make presumptions that have a negative effect on men’s rights?

Women as Nurturers

women have had equal rights regarding custody of their children. So why have men not faired well in the Family Courts?

Primary Care Givers

Fathers’ Rights

Fathers who come to our law office often claim that they are treated like second class citizens in the Family Court regarding child custody, visitation, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), orders of protection and issues involving child abuse and child neglect. They also relate to us that in divorce proceedings in the Supreme Court they are not treated fairly.

Our law office represents fathers with regard to all types of proceedings in the Family Court and the Supreme Court. We aggressively protect fathers’ rights. We deal with difficult issues, such as downward modifications of child support, relocation problems, parental alienation cases and issues involving parental alienation syndrome.  For more than 33 years, we have been recognized as one of the premier fathers’ rights law firms in the Metropolitan New York area. If you have matrimonial or family problems, we can help you.  Call for a consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 and 718-350-2802.

A mother brought an application for attorney’s fees. She claimed the children’s father willfully violated a custody order.

Judge Duggan, sitting in the Family Court of Albany County, found that the father notified the mother of his intention to return the children to the mother nine days late, after he took a vacation with them. The mother rejected the father’s request. The father thereafter refused to allow the mother to see the children. The court found that the father now had to pay both his attorney’s fees and two-thirds of the mother’s attorneys fees for his violation of the custody order. The father argued to the court that his violation of the custody order was a minor one. Nonetheless, the court found that he did violate the order and was on notice from the mother that, if the child was not returned at the appropriate time, she would take legal action to enforce the custody order. In the end, the court decided that the father’s actions involved willfulness and that he should pay a majority of the mother’s attorneys fees.

Nassau and Suffolk County Fathers’ Rights Lawyers

We represent fathers! We have been doing this for more than thirty years. We litigate all aspects ofdivorce, including child custody, visitation, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony) and equitable distribution of property. We also represent fathers with regard to proceedings in family court. We litigate issues involving paternity, downward modifications of child support, relocation problems,parental alienation cases and issues involving parental alienation syndrome. We also negotiateseparation agreements for our clients. Feel free to call us for a free consultation.

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.

Fathers’ Rights

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.

We also represent our clients in no-fault divorces, regarding paternity issues and spousal maintenance (alimony) issues. Feel free to call us for a free consultation.

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.

In November of 2010, Family Court Judge Julianne S. Eisman, sitting in Nassau County, New York, rendered a decision that the New York Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction over acts that take place outside of the United States of America.

Children Assaulted In Anguila

A social worker named Annette Richardson pushed her daughter to the floor, screamed and cursed at her while in Anguilla. The children’s grandmother struck one child on the head with a glass bowl and another claimed that the grandmother ran after him with a meat clever. Motions to dismiss these proceedings in the family court were brought by the attorneys for the mother and the grandmother. These motions claim that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the incidents took place outside of the country.

Judge Eisman’s decision stated, “the fact that this took place in the West Indies is no different from it taking place in Pennsylvania, Virginia or Vermont.” Her ruling stated that since all of the parties involved were residents of Nassau County, they are entitled to litigate these matters in Nassau County.

Judge Eisman ruled that Annette Richardson had committed various family offenses and she granted the application for orders of protection, which excluded her from the family’s home in Nassau County, New York.

Ms. Richardson appealed this matter to the Second Department (in the Appellate Court). The Second Department unanimously concluded that the Family Court Act sets no geographic boundries for family offenses. They stated in their decision that the plain language of Family Court Act section a-12 provides that the Family Court has jurisdiction regarding family offense proceedings where the petition to the court alleges the commission of certain proscribed acts.

Domestic Violence and Fathers

The large majority of domestic violence cases are brought against fathers.Child Protection Services (CPS) and The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) are organizations authorized to investigate and prosecutedomestic violence matters in New York. Investigations by these agencies can be the basis of child abuse and child neglect proceedings against fathers. During the course of the investigation, preliminary orders of protection are usually issued by the family court. The impact of these orders of protection can cause the removal of one the parents from the home where the children reside. Attorneys for the child, or the children, are appointed to represent the child or children’s best interest in these proceedings. Our law office has more than thirty years of experience inproviding legal defense in child abuse cases.

Child abuse cases can sometimes lead to the parties being divorced. In these types of cases, it is important to have experienced fathers’ rights attorneys providing legal representation. Feel free to call our law office for a free consultation regarding domestic violence issues.

Judge John J. Kelly, sitting in the Family Court of Suffolk County, recently rendered a decision in a custody case that the children’s best interest required that they be returned to the custody of their father. The case presented to him was a permanency hearing brought by the Department of Social Services. The Social Services Department had recommended that the children be returned to their father.

The children had been removed from the mother’s home. The children’s temporary guardians were actively involved in a private placement adoption. The children’s mother had died. Before her death, she had promised the guardians that they could adopt her children.

Father Never Notified

According to the decision, the court found that the father did not make these promises too. The promise to have the children put up for adoption by the guardians was solely made by the mother. The court found the father to be a fit parent. He complied with the court’s request to attend mandatory court programs. He had presented ample evidence to the court that he would provide a safe environment for the children to live in. He also encouraged the relationship with the children and their siblings who are in their maternal grandmother’s custody. The court also found that he had recently had a relationship with the children and that there was no abandonment by the father of his children. It was in the children’s best interest that their father be given full custody of them. A father’s rights had prevailed!

Experienced Fathers’ Rights Lawyers

We represent fathers regarding divorce proceedings, orders of protection, child custody, child visitation issues, child support issues, spousal maintenance issues, alimony, child abuse and child neglect proceedings as well as child abuse defense. We also have extensive experience in dealing with paternity issues, child support, no fault divorces and equitable distribution of assets. Call for a free consultation at 516-561-6645, 1-800-344-6431 or 718-350-2802.

Last March, Judge Posner, sitting in the Family Court of Duchess County, ruled that a woman whose ex-husband had been in and out of jail since approximately 2003, and in addition had alcohol related problems, could leave the state with her nine-year-old son. She could take this action in spite of the fact that she had signed a custody order barring her from removing the child more than 25 miles from her residence without giving ninety days notice to the father.

Mother Wants to Move to North Carolina

The mother was a nurse. She wanted to relocate to North Carolina. She had a support system in North Carolina. Her parents were there. She felt moving to North Carolina would improve her financial condition and allow her to spend more time with her son.

She brought a proceeding before family court Judge Posner in Dutchess County. She claimed that she had an untenable financial situation. The father had not participated in raising the child or supporting the child since 2006. Judge Posner took into consideration the father’s long periods related to his incarceration. He also stated that he had failed to support his son or be involved in his son’s life. In her application, Mom advised the judge that relocating would allow her to work less hours and earn a similar salary, and spend more quality time with her son.

Relocation Issues

It was the father’s contention that the mother did not present sufficient evidence to support her position. Although the father didn’t deny his alcohol problems and incarceration had kept him away from his son, he expressed a desire to maintain a relationship with his son.

Best Interests of the Child

Judge Posner ruled that the mother had shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her relocation would be in the best interest of the child and therefore she was justified in modifying the custody agreement. The Judge also stated he was “confident” the mother, if permitted to move, “will take steps to encourage a meaningful relationship” between the father and his son.

The attorney for the mother was interviewed after the decision. She stated, “that this ruling stands for the proposition that having an addiction isn’t an excuse for failure to observe your parental obligations.”

Long Island Fathers’ Rights Lawyers

Fathers have rights that need to be protected. Cases involving child abuse and child neglect are sometimes brought as a cover to obtain custody for the mother. Child Protective Services and Administration for Children’s Services problems can have an impact on a father obtaining custody or visitation with his child. Fathers who are paying child support and are downsized need representation to reduce their child support obligations. Children can be turned away from their fathers due to parental alienation syndrome caused by one parent alienating the child from the other parent by bad mouthing the other parent in the child’s presence. Issues involving paternity, child support and child visitation also acquire aggressive representation. Feel free to call our law office for a free consultation.

When one party to a relationship appears in the Family Court and requests an order of protection, there is a tendency for judges to grant these requests. The initial order of protection, given on an ex parte basis (without the other party having his or her day in court), is called a temporary order of protection. Unfortunately for the fathers, a large majority of temporary orders of protection are given to mothers. This can cause the father to be completely cut off from his family. This means he may not communicate, see, or visit with his children. This can also result in the father being immediately thrown out of his home or apartment. To obtain his clothing and personal possessions, he needs a police escort and he can only take on that occasion what he can carry with him. Imagine, one day, being part of a warm and loving family and, the next day, being on the street with no communication with your wife or your children. What’s more is that you cannot return to your home. Although there are many valid situations for granting an order or protection, my experience is that if a woman comes into court and sheds a few tears and claims she’s afraid of her husband, most family court judges will grant an order of protection. Often no hearing of any type is held. A woman makes a series of general allegations, she receives a temporary order of protection and the father’s world is rocked!

Orders of Protection Affecting Children

Children have two parents, a father and a mother. They want to love both of their parents. In cases where they have relationships with both parents and one parent is abruptly removed from their life, it causes the children to be confused and upset.

Sometimes after the father is removed from the home the mother engages in parental alienation syndrome (bad-mouthing of the father to the children). When one parent bad mouths the other to the children and that parent is out of the children’s lives, the children are subject to what is referred to as parental alienation syndrome. This causes the loss of respect, love, admiration and feelings for the other parent. It turns the children against the other parent.

Family Court Judges

Family Court Judges are placed in a difficult positions. When they are unsure as to whether a woman truly needs an order of protection, they generally err on the side of caution and grant a temporary order of protection. Men should receive a hearing within a short period of time upon being thrown out of their homes. Unfortunately, due to the large number of cases pending before the Family Courts, the quick hearing doesn’t take place for many months. The man is removed from his home and then returns months later when it’s found out there was no real basis for the order of protection. This has an extremely negative effect on the man’s life. Men need to be protected in these situations!

New York Fathers’ Rights Attorneys

We are the fathers’ rights lawyers at the Law Office of Elliot Schlissel. We have represented fathers in all types of litigation, before the Family Court and Supreme Court, for well over thirty years. We represent fathers in divorce proceedings. We litigate child support issues, child custody matters, spousal maintenance issues and downward modifications of child support proceedings.

We represent fathers in relocation proceedings, child abuse and child neglect proceedings. We negociate separation agreements on behalf of our clients. We defend fathers when there are allegations of child abuse and child neglect by either Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) or Child Protective Services (CPS). We also assist fathers in high net worth cases and with regard to the equitable distribution of assets in divorces. Feel free to call us for a free consultation a 1-800-344-6431, 516- 561-6645 and 718-350-2802.

In the matter of “Demetrius D. v. Loti T.”, reported in the New York Law Journal on January 27, 2011, a father sought a downward modification of his child support obligations. The lawsuit was brought in Clinton County, New York, before Family Court Judge Lawliss.

The father in this case was ordered to pay child support for his son, Isiah. At the time of the proceeding, the court was aware that the father was paying child support for three other children. Demetrius was a very active fellow! After the proceeding, in which Judge Lawliss ordered Demetrius to pay child support for Isiah, he was then forced to pay child support for another daughter and subsequently thereafter for another after born son.

Demetrius’s life was a mess! I assume he was not familiar with the concept of birth control.

Downward Modification Proceeding of Child Support for Isiah

Demetrius petitioned Judge Lawliss. He claimed that he had changed jobs and had received a reduction in his wages. He asked the court to reduce his child support obligations regarding his son Isiah.

There had been a ruling by a support magistrate. The support magistrate found that Demetrius voluntarily changed jobs and that the new job paid him less than the prior job. She found that Demetrius voluntarily engaged in sexual acts leading to his having an additional son and he was aware of the financial consequences of having more children. The support magistrate denied Demetrius application. Demetrius appealed this decision to Judge Lawliss in the Family Court of Clinton County.

Judge Lawliss ruled that Demetrius did not successfully prove he was entitled to a downward modification of child support. Judge Lawliss’s written opinion states that Demetrius did not show that the reduction in his wages was cause by actions other than his own decision to change jobs. Therefore, Demetrius’s objections to the support magistrate’s denial of his reduction of child support were without merit and Demetrius lost the case.

New York Fathers’ Rights

If you are a father and find yourself engaged in divorce proceedings or Family Court proceedings, we are the law firm to level the playing field. The law in New York is gender neutral concerning the rights and privileges of fathers and mothers. However, the reality of the practical application of this law in many courts is that fathers get the short end of the stick. Our job is to level this playing field.

We represent fathers concerning orders of protection, child custody, visitation with children, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), as well as child abuse and child neglect proceedings brought on by Child Protective Services (CPS) and Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).

We also represent fathers regarding parental alienation issues. This is caused by one parent taking inappropriate action to create a negative relationship between the child or children and the other parent. Call us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350- 2802 for a free consultation.

Mr. and Mrs. Vandyke were married for thirty-five years. The marriage ended in 2007. Mr. Vandyke was supposed to pay his wife $400.00 in spousal maintenance (alimony) per week until she reached the age of sixty-two.

Mr. Vandyke failed to make his spousal maintenance payments. A hearing was held before Supreme Magistrate Rika Murray in the Family Court of Albany County. Court Magistrate Murray found that Mr. Vandyke had willfully violated his financial obligations to pay spousal maintenance to his wife. The Support Magistrate found that he was $11,774 in arrears.

Mr. Vandyke Appeals the Support Magistrate’s Decision to Family Court Judge Ducan

Judge Ducan reviewed the decision of Support Magistrate Rika Murray. He found that a party should not be held in contempt for failing to make spousal maintenance payments on a timely basis unless there were no other “less drastic” means of collecting this debt. He therefore refused to confirm the Support Magistrate’s finding that Kenneth G. Vandyke willfully failed to pay his maintenance payments.

In his decision, Judge Ducan compared and contrasted the procedures concerning the enforcement of spousal maintenance in the Family Court and the Supreme Court. Judge Ducan found that in the Supreme Court, a party cannot be held in contempt unless the court concludes that there are no other remedies available to collect this debt. He stated, “Family Court cannot be granted any jurisdictional authority that is not available to the Supreme Court, because Supreme Court has plenary jurisdiction over all causes of action”. Judge Ducan stated that before a court could determine that a party should be held in contempt, it must look into whether there are alternatives, such as giving security or enforcing the judgment by income execution or income deduction audit.

Rules For Contempt

Judge Ducan’s decision indicates that the Family Court should be covered by the same rules regarding contempt as the Supreme Court. He remanded the case for further consideration. This is a victory for fathers’ rights.

Long Island, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens Father’s Rights Lawyers

Our law office has been representing fathers and protecting their rights for three decades. We litigate all aspects of divorce proceedings. We deal with equitable distribution of assets, spousal maintenance, child support, paternity, orders of protection, child custody, child visitation, child abuse and child neglect cases. When our clients lose their jobs, we bring downward modification of support proceedings. When either of the parents need to relocate, we deal with relocation issues related to child custody.

We also represent fathers concerning issues involving parental alienation syndrome. This is where one parent engages in parental alienation of a child by making disparaging comments about the father or criticizing the father in front of the child. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802. Our phones are monitored 24/7.