May 10th, 2011
On February 17th, Justice Maron, sitting in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, rendered a decision in the case of S. S. v. M.S, denying the defendant husband a downward modification of his child support and spousal maintenance payments. The husband’s application to the court indicated that his income had been greatly reduced. He stated his income had been reduced by 58%. He explained the reduction in his income was caused by being terminated from his high-paying position. He claimed he was only able to find employment at a greatly reduced salary.
Liquidation of Assets
The father claimed he had been forced to liquidate assets to maintain the current rate of his financial obligations for child support and spousal maintenance. He also alleged his health was being negatively impacted by this situation.
Justice Maron found the father’s net worth statement was not complete. His decision stated that the father failed to set forth the total amount of his assets. He found the father was a title owner to a brokerage account worth over a half million dollars and, in addition, he owned an individual retirement account with a cash value of over $163,000.
Justice Maron reached a conclusion, based on the father’s additional assets, that he had sufficient liquid assets available to fulfill his financial obligations for child support and spousal maintenance. The Judge ruled the current child support and spousal maintenance payments did not create an extreme hardship for the father.
The law office of Elliot Schlissel represents individuals with regard to all aspects of matrimonial and family law. We litigate the grounds for divorce, orders of protection, child custody, child abuse, child neglect, annulments, issues involving fathers’ rights, mothers’ rights and we participate in mediation to resolve divorce matters. We also draft pre-nuptial agreements and post-nuptial agreements. Feel free to call us for a free consultation at 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.
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 4th, 2011
President Obama has recently spoken with regard to women’s rights issues. Women today are more likely to graduate from college than men. Statistics show that they still earn less money, on average, than men. Studies also show that the financial circumstances of women are generally not up to the same standards as that of men.
The President recently stated, “achieving equality and opportunity for women isn’t just important to me as president, it’s something I care about deeply as the father of two daughters who want to see his girls grow up in a world where there are no limits to what they can achieve.”
When President Obama was first elected, he signed legislation allowing women who have been discriminated against concerning salaries from their employers to have access to the courts for legal redress. When the United States Senate blocked action on a proposal to treat gender discrimination involving salaries in the same manner as racial, disability and age discrimination, President Obama indicated he was sadly disappointed.
The President said, “at a time when folks across the country are struggling to make ends meet – and many families are just trying to get by on one paycheck after a job loss – it’s a reminder that achieving equal pay for equal work isn’t just a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.”
Paycheck Fairness Act
Republicans and various business groups oppose the Paycheck Fairness Act. They claim it would cause employers to face more litigation by removing limits concerning punitive damages and monetary damage awards.
Fathers’ Rights in the Family Court
In the Family Court in the state of New York, the laws are gender neutral. Both men and women are supposed to be treated equally. However, my experience is that sometimes there is an unequal treatment of men and women. Men are sometimes treated unfairly in the Family Court and in the Supreme Court concerning divorce related issues. Our law office has been protecting fathers’ rights for more than thirty years. We litigate issues involving Child Protective Services and Administration for Children’s Services problems. We deal with child abuse and child neglect proceedings, spousal maintenance issues, child support, paternity, child custody, visitation with children, orders of protection and all other divorce and Family Court issues. We take fathers’ rights seriously! Call us for a free consultation.
March 25th, 2011
If one of the parties to a divorce action files for divorce, can he or she later file bankruptcy during the course of the divorce? The answer to this question is yes. Now let’s change the circumstances a bit. A husband and wife are involved in a divorce and during the course of the divorce, the husband is ordered by the court to make mortgage payments. Unfortunately, he falls behind in the mortgage payments. Is filing for bankruptcy the best route to stop the house from being foreclosed upon? The answer to this question in many instances is yes.
In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the debtor sets up a plan to reorganize his or her debts. The plan is designed to bring the debtor up to date on his or her debts during a period of three to five years. The amount of the payment pursuant to the bankruptcy plan is based on the debtor’s income.
Debts are classified into various types within the plan. Unsecured creditors, such as debts related to credit cards, may be paid on a percentage of what is owed. Interest and penalty payments to these creditors are eliminated in the plan.
Secured creditors, such as mortgage holders on real estate, are paid 100% of what they are owed under the plan. Banks holding mortgages who have refused to accept payments from the debtors are now forced to accept mortgage payments from the debtors under the bankruptcy plan.
Bankruptcy Protection for the Spouse
Under the bankruptcy law, child support and spousal maintenance payments are non dischargeable debt. This means a father obligated in the divorce to pay spousal maintenance and child support to his wife cannot eliminate these debts. Financial obligations of the payer’s spouse, under court orders of the divorce to make mortgage or home equity line payments, are considered to be part of the spousal maintenance and child support payments and these obligations are also non dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Chapter 13 bankruptcies can successfully be utilized to give a spouse who has obligations to make mortgage payments and pay spousal maintenance and/or child support an opportunity to come current in these obligations, save the home from being sold in foreclosure and comply with the state court order.
The foreclosure defense lawyers at the law office of Elliot Schlissel have been representing individuals with financial difficulties for more than three decades. Our office helps our clients prepare mortgage modification applications. We also deal with mortgage modification programs that fail to meet our clients’ needs. We defend foreclosure lawsuits for our clients. We attend foreclosure court conferences, litigate defective foreclosure lawsuits, predatory lending issues, defective mortgages and bad faith on behalf of financial institutions. We also assist our clients with other types of real estate litigation. Should bankruptcy be the route to dealing with our clients’ problems, we file both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies on behalf of our clients. Feel free to call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.
March 15th, 2011
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!
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!
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.
March 9th, 2011
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.
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.
March 1st, 2011
Lawrence C. and Antheap met based on an advertisement placed on a website for a partner to conceive a child through artificial insemination. When the parties met, it was agreed that Antheap would be artificially inseminated and Lawrence C. would play a role in the parenting of the perspective child. In June of 2008, twins were born. A custody arrangement was worked out between the parties. During a two-week period, Dad had the children with him for four evenings. Mom had the children with her for ten evenings.
The relationship between the parties was never one of love and affection. It was strictly one of convenience, for the purpose of conceiving children. In 2007, the relationship soured.
Court Hearing Before Referee Barnett
Referee Barnett, sitting in the Family Court for New York County, rendered a decision after a hearing that the father should be the primary residential custodial parent of the children after they reach the age of four. In the decision of Referree Barnett, Dad was given final decision-making authority on all significant issues, including, without limitation, education, medical care and extra curricular activities. Mom appealed.
Appellate Division First Department Ruling
The Appellate Division of the First Department, located in New York County, overturned the decision of Court Referree Elizabeth Barnett. The Appellate Division found “none of the grounds upon which the Referree ordered a future change in custody are so compelling as to warrant the attended disruption of the children’s lives.” The court went on to state, “speculation (based solely on lay testimony) that the children, by reason of their non-traditional family background, would more easily fit in with other children in the father’s west village neighborhood than in the mother’s predominately Greek American neighborhood in Queens “was not a reasonable basis for making a custody decision concerning the best interest of the children.”
The Appellate Division also stated that, while each parent would do well to adopt a more cooperative attitude towards the other, the past problems with the mother’s conduct are not so great as to warrant displacing her as the primary custodial parent.
Are you a father with a legal problem? If so, we are the attorneys for you. We have more than thirty years of experience representing fathers in all types of father’s rights cases. We litigate divorce proceedings, child custody proceedings, child visitation proceedings, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), as well as child abuse and child neglect proceedings in the Supreme Courts and Family Courts throughout the metropolitan New York area.
We develop defenses for fathers who are removed from their residences based on orders of protection. We litigate the equitable distribution of property of the parties in divorce cases. When the situation is appropriate, we negotiate separation agreements for our clients.
When mothers seek to leave the metropolitan New York area for the purposes of relocating, we litigate relocation problems on behalf of fathers.
If you are a father and you have problems involving your children, we are the law firm for you. We will give you a free consultation. We will analyze your problems and provide you with a detailed presentation as to how we can help you resolve these problems. Call us for a free consultation at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 – Father’s Rights Website.
January 25th, 2011
A man wearing a motorcycle helmet entered the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas on Tuesday, December 14, 2010. He pulled out his gun at the window where the chips were maintained. He escaped with $1.5 million dollars in chips! In the movie “Ocean’s Eleven”, the Bellagio Hotel is robbed by George Clooney, Brad Pitt and his crew.
Bellagio Chips May Be Worthless!
As indicated earlier, the robber received Bellagio chips and not money. Although these chips can be used at the Bellagio Hotel, the robber will have difficulty in converting these chips into money. To start with, these chips are very rarely circulated. The Bellagio has notified all of it’s cashiers, pit bosses and other employees of the robbery. The Bellagio security personnel will certainly be on the lookout for anyone trying to cash in large amounts of chips in the future. Within the chips is a tiny electronic devise that will allow the Bellagio Hotel to track the chips.
The police believe the same individuals that robbed the Bellagio Hotel also stole $20,000 in chips from the Las Vegas Sun Coast Hotel the same day. The casino industry in Las Vegas has some of the most sophisticated security devices in the world to deal with robberies.
We can handle your divorce. We will aggressively deal with child support, child custody, spousal maintenance (alimony), division of property and all other divorce-related issues. Call us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802. We can help you!
January 20th, 2011
Susan Williams of Garden City, New York, was recently sentenced by Nassau County judge Norman St. George to serve 8 to 25 years in prison for hiring a hit man to murder her husband.
Divorce by Murder
Judge St. George stated, “She wanted a divorce by murder.” He further stated upon sentencing that “The court will show the same leniency to the defendant that she afforded to her husband.”
Susan Williams hired a hit man to kill her husband, Peter Williams. She was having marital difficulties with her husband. Instead of getting a divorce, she decided to murder him and collect his life insurance.
Unfortunately for Susan Williams, the man she hired and gave a five-hundred dollar deposit on a twenty thousand dollar murder-for-hire arrangement was an undercover police officer. This was her way of short cutting the divorce process.
One Million Dollar Life Insurance Policy
Ms. Williams had forged her husband’s signature to a one million dollar life insurance policy in 2009. At the time of her sentencing, her children begged the court for mercy for their mother. On a surveillance video tape, Ms. Susan Williams passed on several chances to let her husband live. She stated on the video tape, “I would do it myself if I could.” The Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said Williams should have thought about her children when she planned to murder their father. Kathleen Rice stated, “She knew what she was doing was going to destroy their lives, and she did it anyway.” Kathleen Rice further stated, after Williams was sentenced, “The tears she’s crying now are for herself.”
A divorce in New York is not so difficult to accomplish. For more than thirty-three years, our law office has been assisting our clients in obtaining divorces. We represent our clients and help them obtain spousal maintenance (alimony) and child support for their children. We help fathers and mothers in issues involving child custody and visitation. We litigate fathers’ rights issues involving orders of protection concerning Child Protective Services (CPS) and the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). We are available to represent our clients concerning issues involving paternity and child abuse. Should you have questions, feel free to contact us at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802.