Live chat- online now

We are here to assist you. Chat with us now.

Chat Banner

Can We Help You?

Menu
Squarebtn

contact us today

516-561-6645 718-350-2802 631-319-8262

free consultation

Lie To The Court and Your Divorce Gets Dismissed

Justice Charles J. Markey was recently presented with two cases involving divorces that had similar fact situations. In both cases judgments for divorce had been granted to the parties based on sworn statements that there were no children from the marriages. However in both situations the court eventually discovered that there were children of these marriages.

The court found intentional fraud or inexcusable recklessness due to the fact there were unemancipated children of the marriages who required child support to be paid on their behalf. Since there were misrepresentations in the original documents, there was no child support in the divorce judgments.

In both situations the court vacated the judgments of divorce. The court refused to amend the divorce judgment to include the children. Both divorce law suits were dismissed by the courts.

Stayed Foreclosure Allowed To Continue

The court took note that in both situations there were homes in foreclosure. He put in previously granted stays with regard to the foreclosure proceeding during the pendency of the divorces. The court vacated the stays of the foreclosure matters and allowed the two foreclosures proceedings to proceed. Conclusion, tell the truth in your divorce admissions!

New York and Long Island Divorce Lawyers

The attorneys of the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo have extensive experience in handling matrimonial and family court cases. The lawyers have a total of 100 years combined experience. These attorneys have extensive experience with regard to 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.

Elliot S. Schlissel has litigated numerous cases dealing with professionals whether they are doctors, lawyers or dentists whose practices were being equitably distributed. The firm pays special attention to individuals who have high net worth divorce situations. Feel free to call for a free consultation 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645 and 718-350-2802.

New York Declines Jurisdiction in Custody Cases

child-150x1501A father brought a custody petition in New York State. The next day, the mother who resided in Texas brought a custody petition for the parties child in Texas. There was litigation to determine whether New York or Texas would be the appropriate jurisdiction to determine who receives custody of the child.

The Parties Were Divorced In Michigan

The parties were originally divorced in the state of Michigan. Issues involving child support, child custody, visitation and parenting time were still pending at the time the proceedings were brought in New York and Texas. Judge Statler, sitting in the Family Court of New York County, was presented with a sticky issue as to what state has jurisdiction. The father claimed that New York not Texas should be the state to determine custody. In her decision, Judge Statler found that, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Texas would be the appropriate state to handle this child custody case. Her reasoning was that the child had resided in Texas with the mother for approximately one year at the time of the initiation of the custody proceedings. Under this law, the state that the child lived in for the past six months is the appropriate state to determine custody. Judge Statler also found there were more significant contacts with the child and the mother in the state of Texas than in New York. She therefore dismissed the case and the case will now have to be dealt with in Texas.

Fathers’ Rights Law Firm

The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo is one of the premier fathers’ rights law firms in the country. Our attorneys have more than ninety years of combined legal experience in handling fathers’ rights cases. We litigate divorce matters, orders of protection, child custody, child visitation, child support, spousal maintenance (alimony), child abuse and child neglect proceedings. In addition, we deal with CPS and ACS problems related to child abuse and child neglect. When our clients lose their jobs or have reduced income, we bring proceedings to reduce child support payments. We litigate numerous cases each year involving issues concerning paternity, equitable distribution, grandparents’ rights and high net worth divorces. We also are negotiating separation agreements, prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. Feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

Are Non-Modifiable § 516 Non-Marital Child Support Agreements Unconstitutional?

father-son-holding-handsAs an office that has a very strong Matrimonial and Family practice, it is with great interest that we read Noeleen Walder’s recent article in the New York Law Journal (“NYLJ,” subscription required). She reported that the current non-modifiable status of § 516 child support agreements for non-marital children, may soon be changing.

Child Support agreements between the parents of children who were born in the context of marriage may be modified without court approval. But child support agreements made between parents of a child born out of wedlock may only be modified by court order, and not by mutual agreement, pursuant to § 516 of NY’s Family Court Act.

According to the NYLJ, the Appellate Division, First Department, in the unanimous decision in Barbara N. v. James H.N., 4399, invalidated a § 516 non-marital child support agreement. While not directly ruling on the constitutional question, the panel held that “to the extent that the statute precludes attempts to reverse support agreements for non-marital children, its constitutionality is questionable.”

What is the constitutional question? Child Support compromises are valid without court order for marital children but not for non-marital children. This poses an Equal Protection problem under the 14th Amendment. The panel suggested that § 516 does not offer equal protection under the law by treating marital children differently from non-marital children.

Based on this and other objections, some state legislators have proposed repealing § 516, and therefore A02578/S2975 is currently before the state Assembly and the Senate Codes Committee.

Picture courtesy of Gov Gab.

  • banner-changes
  • image5
  • image6
  • image7