November 27th, 2012
Justice Matthew Cooper, sitting in Supreme Court, New York County, granted an application in the matter of Castaneda v. Castaneda, for a change in venue in a divorce proceeding from Manhattan to Suffolk County. The wife in this case brought an application claiming that the venueing of the case in Manhattan was improper. She resided in Suffolk County. Her husband resided in Queens County.
Justice Cooper, in his decision, wrote “that it appears to become an accepted practice for ‘so called divorce mills’ to file divorce actions in New York County even when neither of the spouses actually live in the county.” He presumed that they took this action because New York County processed divorces faster than other counties.
Wife In Suffolk County And Husband In Queens County
Justice Cooper in his decision stated that since the wife lived in Suffolk County and the husband lived in Queens County, New York County could not be the proper venue for the divorce proceeding. He granted the wife’s application to change venue. The Court stated the legislature should amend the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules to require parties in divorce proceedings to file the proceedings in the county in which they reside in unless there were special circumstances shown. In the alternative, he suggested trial Judges be given the discretion on their own to transfer cases to the proper county the case should be heard in.
Divorce mills refer to attorneys that do high volume allegedly simple divorces often assuming the issues involving custody, child support, spousal maintenance and other significant issues have been resolved and therefore the parties just need a change in their status. This is not always the case. In many situations the alleged uncontested divorces often fall apart and contested litigation proceedings are necessary.
July 30th, 2012
Carl M. Perry had an order of protection against him. This order of protection from the Family Court in Monroe County indicated he was to have no contact with his wife. It further ordered, he was to stay away from his wife.
During the period of the order of protection, Carl gained access to his wife’s Facebook account. He sent out letters to friends and family on his wife’s friends and family list. In these letters he complained that his wife was using the parties children against him. He further indicated that she was preventing him from seeing or communicating with his children. Mr. Perry was charged with criminal contempt for violating the order of protection that barred him from having contact with his wife.
Justice DiSalvo, sitting in the Webster Town court, dismissed the criminal charges against him. The Justice stated in his decision “changes in technology, including the way people communicate, continue to present unique challenges to the courts. As of the date (April 7th) of this decision there were no reported cases of people charged with violating an order of protection for accessing Facebook. One must look for cases where defendants are charged for indirectly contact a protected person by making statements to others.” The court further held, that there was nothing in the order of protection that prevented him from accessing the Facebook account.
The court held that by communicating with individuals through Facebook he was not either directly or indirectly trying to contact Ms. Perry. The court further stated, the order of protection did not prevent the defendant from having contact with individuals that happen to be listed on Ms. Perry’s Facebook account. It also did not prevent him from having contact with family, friends or acquaintances.
This is a win for Facebook. If you have an order of protection against you can still communicate with third parties through Facebook provided the order of protection doesn’t specifically mention no contact through Facebook accounts.
April 24th, 2012
Justice Palmieri in the Supreme Court located in Nassau County, New York, has rendered an unusual decision in a divorce case. Divorce Law in New York does not make fault a factor in equitable distribution of assets unless there is “egregious marital fault.” In this case, the wife’s husband of ten years had been convicted of sexually molesting her eight year old granddaughter from another marriage. The attorney for the wife sought to make an inquiry with the husband with regard to his conduct being a potential factor in the equitable distribution of the property. The husband’s attorney brought a protective order application alleging that this conduct is not material to the equitable distribution of assets.
Sexual Abuse Is Egregious Fault
Judge Palmieri, in his decision, stated “it cannot be seriously argued that this could never be a sufficient basis…for finding ‘outrageous’ or ‘conscious shocking’ conduct no matter what disclosure of the underlying facts might reveal.” He therefore, allowed the discovery of material to develop the facts in this situation.
Mrs. G stated that after her husband was convicted she had a nervous breakdown. She was forced to take medication which prevented her from functioning properly. She needed therapy, but could not continue with the therapy because her husband refused to pay for the treatment.
Judge Palmieri in his decision stated “notwithstanding the plea, no trial Court can fairly determine whether the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently outrageous or conscious shocking to affect equitable distribution on a conviction alone.” This is due to the fact plea bargains are often the result of negotiations in which various factors come into play. The judge went on further to say “the issue is his conduct and the effect on the plaintiff and his alleged victims cannot be used as shields.”
Judge Palmieri has deviated from the established law with regard to allowing fault to be taken into consideration in the equitable distribution of assets. I presume this case will be appealed. It is my expectation that it will be reversed by the Appellate Division.
Sometimes when fathers come into Court, they find the playing field is not level. The Family Court is often referred to as “mommy’s court.” However, there is a way to level the playing field and that is to hire the most experienced, most competent aggressive fathers’ rights lawyers available.
The attorneys of the Law Offices of Elliot Schlissel are recognized throughout the metropolitan New York area as the premiere father’s rights lawyers. We litigate issues involving divorces, child custody, visitation, changing child custody, child support, child abuse, child neglect, annulments, parental alienation cases, as well as orders of protections. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802.
March 27th, 2012
When a couple has children it is usually an extremely significant event in their lives. The raising of children changes many aspects of the couples life. One of the aspects that can be negatively impacted on is the friendships with couples that do not have children. There are important things you should never say to a couple that doesn’t have children.
I Guess You Have A Pet
Pets can be a large part of a couples life. However they are never a substitute for having a child. You should never talk to a childless couple in a manner that sounds like it is a consolation prize for not having children.
When Do You Intend On Having Children?
Couples that have the blessing of children often want their friends to share in their wonderful experiences. However, asking other couples about when they plan on having children in public situations is definitely a no-no. There are a variety of reasons why couples don’t have children. Sometimes they decide having children isn’t right for them. There could be medical problems such as infertility that the couple is facing. If you want to discuss issues concerning why a couple isn’t having children you should very carefully and very discreetly bring it up only in private conversations.
I Guess You Get A Lot More Sleep Than I Do?
Couples with children are very often up during the night dealing with their children’s issues. But the opposite is also untrue. Couples generally do not decide to not have children because they want to sleep more at night. Comments can sound like the couple is acting in a shallow or selfish manner.
We Always Wanted To Have A Family
This expression can be misinterpreted. Childless couples, when they hear this expression, may believe you’re saying a couple who don’t have children are not a family. There are many types of families. Significant others, parents, brothers and sisters, cousins, all constitute family members.
If you are married and things don’t work out, you may need to get divorced. In those situations the New York divorce lawyers at the Law Offices of Elliot Schlissel can help you out. The divorce lawyers at the Law Office of Elliot Schlissel have more than 100 years of combined legal experience in dealing with matrimonial and family law cases. Among the various of matters handled by the Law Office of Elliot Schlissel are divorce grounds, family law, child custody, changing visitation, child abuse and child neglect, drafting separation agreements, prenuptial and post nuptial agreements. We also have litigated cases involving mothers’ rights and fathers’ rights. The firm has extensive experience in dealing with high net worth divorce issues. Call for a free consultation.
March 8th, 2012
Divorce is a process where a person seeks to change his or her status of being married for the purpose of ending the marriage. It can be a quick, intelligent, well thought out process or it can be a horror story such as in the movie The War of the Roses.
An example of a divorce gone badly was recently in the newspapers in New York. Mr. And Mrs. Friedlander were involved in a tough, nasty divorce. Mr. Friedlander, a well known attorney, took a gun and murdered his wife and children. He then killed himself. There are many divorce horror stories. Should you find yourself involved in a divorce before it gets over the top, you should take the appropriate action.
Keep Your Sanity
If you find that your divorce is overwhelming you should seek out therapy. You may be facing issues such as fear and dependency. You must also keep your children’s best interest in mind during the divorce process. Professional help may be necessary to keep you on an even keel.
Sometimes things get out of control during divorces. Normally reasonable individuals get pushed towards domestic violence. If you live with your spouse and you feel you’re in danger you should act. Orders of protection and other devices are available to protect you from an aggressive spouse. Even if your spouse incites you, it does not justify violence!
Dealing With The Pressure
Divorces can bring intense pressure on families. Men and women often go tit for tat, with regard to pushing each other’s buttons. Children who watch one parent bullying the other can become bullies themselves. Learn how to deal with your spouse pushing your buttons. Don’t get carried away, don’t over react, don’t lose your humanity!
Therapy For Your Children
If you are involved in a bitter divorce and your children are exposed to inappropriate behavior it may be necessary to put them in therapy to help them deal with this difficult situation.
The fathers’ rights lawyers at the Law Offices of Elliot S. Schlissel have more than 100 years of combined legal experience with all divorce related issues. We deal with orders of protections, child custody, visitation, change in child custody, child support, family court issues, spousal maintenance (alimony) and child abuse and child neglect proceedings.
We have extensive experience in dealing with CPS and ACS problems. We bring applications on behalf of our clients to reduce child support. We also have extensive experience in handling paternity cases. Our office represents fathers in annulments, in dealing with equitable distribution and relocation problems. We negotiate separation agreements when appropriate for our clients. We also represent grandparents regarding grandparents’ rights issues. Call us for a free consultation.
February 3rd, 2012
In a paternity by estoppel situation a man who is not the biological father of a child can be forced to pay child support. In the matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y. 3D 330, 853 NE 2d 610, 820 NYS 2d 199, 206 NYSlop op.05238 the New York State Court of Appeals held in a child support proceeding a man who had mistakenly represented himself as the child’s father could be estopped (stopped) from denying paternity. In this case the child justifiably relied on the man’s representation of paternity. This is true even though DNA testing showed the man was not the actual father of the child. The court reached this conclusion based on the best interest of the child.
Dilemma For Men Who Support Children
There is a dilemma for men who seek to help children. Imagine a case where a man seeks to help support his girlfriend’s child. He pays periodic child support. Thereafter he breaks up with the girlfriend. She brings a proceeding in the Family Court requesting he be forced to pay child support. She can allege in the suit that by paying the child support in the past he represented he was acting as the child’s father. The man could ask for DNA testing which would show that he is not the biological father of the child. When the case becomes before the Judge, the Judge can stop him from presenting evidence that he is not the actual biological father of the child because it would be in the child’s best interest to have a relationship with a father figure. It’s in the child’s best interest that money be received by the mother to help support the child. Is this justice? In the writer’s opinion, it is very questionable. No!
If you are helping to support a child that is not yours, be careful. Should your relationship with the mother end, you may be forced to make involuntary child support payments, even if you are not the biological father of the child.
The Law Offices of Elliot Schlissel is well known for protecting father’s rights throughout the Metropolitan New York area courts. Our law firm has extensive experience in representing fathers with regard to all types of Supreme Court and Family Court proceedings. We represent fathers with regard to all aspects of divorce and all divorce related issues, such as child custody, child visitation, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), equitable distribution of property and a negotiation of separation agreements.
In situations where the fathers are alleged to have acted inappropriately concerning their spouse, girlfriends or children, we represent fathers in dealing with orders of protection, child abuse and child neglect proceedings, Child Protective Services (CPS) and Association for Children Services (ACS) proceedings as well as issues involving paternity. We also have extensive experience in obtaining annulments for fathers, reducing child support and dealing with parental alienation situations where mothers turn the children against fathers. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718- 350-2802.
February 2nd, 2012
A wife recently brought a proceeding before Judge Anthony J. Falanga in the Supreme Court located in Nassau County. She claimed in this proceeding the 1998 prenuptial agreement she executed should be set aside. She alleged her husband fraudulently induced her into signing the agreement. She was convinced to sign the prenuptial agreement because of her spouse’s promise to destroy it upon the birth of the couple’s first child. He promised as soon as the first child was born all of the assets of the marriage will be placed in both her and his name.
Judge Falanga carefully reviewed the evidence submitted to him on this case. He rendered a decision declaring the prenuptial agreement null and void. He found the husband had made promises to the wife at the time of the execution of the agreement. These promises were lies and misrepresentations. The husband had no intention of carrying out these promises. He only made these promises for the purpose of convincing the wife to sign the prenuptial agreement so the wedding would take place.
The court noted the husband only provided the wife with a copy of the agreement a short time prior to the wedding date. Judge Falanga stated “this was calculated and speaks volumes as to the importance he attributed to being protected financially from a possible failed marriage.” The court in it’s decision stated “the wife had justifiably placed her trust in her future husband’s representations to her detriment and was damaged by being denied a share of significant marital property.”
If you’re entering into a prenuptial agreement, it should be prepared long in advance of the wedding and trickery should not be used to induce a party to execute the agreement.
February 1st, 2012
Jennifer Burger wanted to marry Mr. Diack. Michael Diack is a convicted level one sex offender. Jennifer brought a proceeding before Judge Maron, who sits in the Supreme Court located in Nassau County, New York. She asked the court to set aside a January 2009 stipulation contained in her divorce judgment from her previous husband Robert Burger. She sought to set aside this stipulation so she could marry Michael Diack. The stipulation, which she had executed, required three adults be present any time Mr. Diack was around the Burger’s children, currently 8 and 13 years of age.
Judge Refuses to Set Aside Stipulation
When Judge Maron refused to set aside this stipulation, he effectively blocked her from ever marrying Mr. Diack. She couldn’t marry Mr. Diack because she could not live with him in the same residence as her children pursuant to the stipulation.
The Judge’s decision stated there was no change in circumstances that would justify his setting aside this agreement. Jennifer’s attorney, stated “this woman should not have to choose between the man she loves and wishes to marry and being the custodial parent for her children, when her fiance poses no risk of harm to the children.”
Jennifer’s fiance has pled guilty in 2001 to possession of child pornography in the third degree and for grand larceny for writing bad checks. He was given a sentence of two to four years in prison and labeled a level one sex offender.
The children’s father, Mr. Burger opposed the vacating the stipulation, claiming Mr. Diack would be a danger to his children. Mr. Burger’s attorney claimed his client’s opposition to setting aside the stipulation was driven by a “a legitimate concern” for his children.
Fathers have rights that need to be protected. In situations involving divorces orders of protection, child custody, child visitation, child abuse and child neglect proceedings, fathers need aggressive, experienced advocates. Fathers dealing with issues concerning paternity, annulments, equitable distribution of assets in a divorce, relocation problems and parental alienation problems should seek out the very best lawyers available to represent them. The Law Office of Elliot Schlissel is a recognized father’s rights law firm. We have litigated numerous matters on behalf of fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 30 years. We are well known and respected in the courts and by our adversaries. Call us should you have an issue you wish to discuss.
January 26th, 2012
If you seek a non-confrontational approach to ending your marital relationship, mediation may be the route for you to take. Mediation is a type of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which can be a very cost-effective and efficient manner of amicably working out divorce related issues.
Mediated divorces are not litigated and there are no court appearances. A trained and neutral third party, usually an attorney familiar with matrimonal and family law, meets with the parties and reviews all issues with them in a non-confrontational manner. If the parties are mature, reasonable, and patient, mediation may be the best route to take with regard to handling a divorce case.
Mediation, however, is not for everyone. Situations where the parties are not talking to each other or are not amicable do not present a good prospect for mediation. Cases involving very volatile relationships are also inappropriate cases for mediation. Further, domestic violence matters should not be mediated.
Divorcing your partner can be a difficult process. Long term decisions need to be made on issues such as child custody, visitation (parenting time), spousal maintenance (alimony), equitable distribution of assets, dealing with business assets, valuing professional degrees, as well as the grounds for divorce. If you decide to use mediation, you should choose your mediator carefully. The Matrimonial and Family law attorneys at the Law Office of Elliot Schlissel have more than 100 years combined experience dealing with all types of Matrimonial and Family Law issues. We are available to discuss mediation and other divorce related topics. Contact us for a free consultation.
January 3rd, 2012
Supreme Court Justice, Robert J. Muller, has decided that under the new New York No Fault Divorce Law an objecting party is not entitled to a trial on the issue of fault the marriage is beyond repair. Justice Muller’s decision is an interpretation of New York’s year old No Fault Divorce Law. The Judge’s decision interprets the legislature’s intent that the new No Fault Divorce Law does not give an option to a spouse to demand a trial on the issue that the marriage is irreconciably broken.
The Judge in his decision stated “New York Legislature has enacted in DRL Section 170(7), a true No Fault Divorce Law which does not require proof of any fault, and which does not require or permit the government, through it’s courts, to put people seeking a divorce on trial regarding their marriage.” Justice Muller pointed out in his decision that his ruling is in agreement with a decision of Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Anthony J. Falanga in the case of AC vs. DR, where Judge Falanga ruled that a woman could not challenge her husband’s declaration the marriage was irretrivably broken. In that case the woman was also not allowed to have a trial on the fault ground.
Divorce Made Simple
The New Divorce Law eliminates litigation concerning fault issues of who did what to whom. However, issues involving child support, spousal maintenance, custody, orders of protection, visitation rights (parenting time) and attorneys fees in divorces are still subject to litigation.
Mothers and fathers have equal rights regarding custody, visitation, child support, spousal maintenance and other issues in divorces. The Law Office of Elliot Schlissel have been litigating these issues for more than three decades. In addition, the law firm negotiates separation agreements, pre nuptial agreements and post nuptial agreements. In cases of one parent turning the children against another, the law firm litigates parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome related issues. Call for a free consultation. The offices phone numbers are 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802. The law firm phones are monitored 24/7.