New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

A Kings Domestic Violence Lawyer said that, New York City Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter petitioner) filed an application for a prepetition ex parte court order seeking access to enter the home of a family subject to an ongoing child protective investigation that was commenced by a report to the State Central Registry (hereinafter SCR) on July 13, 2009. The SCR report concerned allegations of possible domestic violence occurring in the presence of the children. Brought pursuant to Family Court Act § 1034, titled “Power to order investigations,” the instant application pertains to the family consisting of the parents and their five children, ages 12, 10, 8, 7 and 3. Petitioner’s application for an order of entry into their home set forth: A report of suspected child abuse or maltreatment was made to SCR on July 13, 2009. The report stated that there was concern about ongoing domestic violence in the home involving the father assaulting his wife with the most recent incident occurring several days earlier when the father beat his wife so severely that she required stitches to her forehead. The SCR report set forth the belief that this altercation occurred in the presence of all of the children.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, on the same date the report was made and again on July 15, 2009, the CPS worker assigned to investigate the SCR report conducted home visits to the case address and left written notes requesting that the parents contact her. The mother and her five children went to petitioner’s field office and met with the CPS worker. She, however, “refused to provide any personal information” and would not allow the CPS worker to speak to the children alone or in her presence; the child also refused to speak to the CPS worker. When the CPS worker asked her if she would agree to schedule an appointment to permit her to conduct a visit to the home, she replied no because she did not know her. The CPS worker continued to make several more attempts to gain entry into the Smith home through telephone contact and subsequent unannounced home visits. On July 28, 2009, the CPS worker sent a letter advising the parents of their need to cooperate with her investigation.

On August 4, 2009, the CPS worker visited the summer camp, which the four oldest children attended, in an effort to interview them; all of the children refused to speak to her. Thereafter, the CPS worker made several more attempts to visit the home and to contact the parents by telephone with no success. On August 24, 2009, the CPS worker made another unannounced home visit and again left a written note for the parents asking them to contact her. On September 2, 2009, the CPS worker made an unannounced home visit and while Mrs. Smith answered the door she did not permit the CPS worker into the home stating, “She was not prepared to receive company.” The CPS worker spoke to Mrs. Smith in the hallway and asked her to attend a family conference at her office the next day, September 3, 2009, at 10:00 A.M. Although she agreed to attend the meeting neither she nor her husband did so.

Continue reading

The court heard credible compelling testimony from the parties long-time rabbi and spiritual leader who not only was involved for many years with the wife’s organization as an advisor, but whose young daughter was a close friend of the youngest child; the parents entertaining each other at respective homes. Once the marital discord started, though, the couples’ relationship soured. The rabbi clearly disturbed and still bewildered by not only the wife’s distancing and resignation from the synagogue which they belonged for many years, but the denial of access to the youngest daughter by not only to him but more painfully from her best friend, his own daughter. These two children had a close bond, spent time in camp and each other’s home, which was interfered with by the mother.

The rabbi, who had often and consistent contact with the wife, never knew or heard of any domestic violence and would occasionally meet with the wife and clients of the organization who were victims of domestic violence. The rabbi relayed that, in his opinion, the wife’s descriptions of events to him were “generally truthful but often with exaggeration”.

It is clear to the criminal court, the wife’s exaggeration, coupled with an escalating need and quest to control, permeates the wife’s testimony. Moreover, in his report the doctor noted that the wife “demonstrates personality traits characterized by a high degree of anxiety, with a somewhat histrionic and medodramatic tendency, which leads to a certain degree of catastrophicing particularly in relation to her daughter [youngest daughter].” The issue of exaggeration and control by the wife was all too evident during the course of the trial, as was the fact that the father chose to ignore much of the tension and dysfunctionalism that went on during the marriage in the hope of saving the marriage, culminating in a loss of control and inappropriate verbal rage and a literal “tug of war” with each parent trying to pull the child. That rage, when taken in the context ofthis divorce action, has serious, deleterious affects on the family unit. Clearly, though, this divorce was long overdue.

Continue reading

Plaintiff-husband moves, by order to show cause for an order: (1) directing defendant-wife to produce the subject child, in the court; and (2) transferring custody from the wife to the husband; and (3) granting such other and further relief as the court may determine.

A Kings County Family attorney said that the parties herein were married in a religious ceremony in June 2008, in Aventura, Dade County, Florida. There is one (1) child of this marriage who was born in August 2009 recently turned two (2) years of age. The husband commenced the instant action for divorce in Kings County, New York and for custody of the minor child in June 2011. At the time the action for divorce was commenced, the parties were living apart for several months.

The wife instituted an action for divorce in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida and filed and received an ex-parte injunction in March 2011 enjoining either party from removing the child from the State of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. The wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Florida. Her petition in Florida has since been amended in July 2011 to include claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.

Continue reading

A Kings Criminal Family Lawyer said that, petitioner mother and guardian of her daughter and son, who reside with petitioner, seeks a court order changing her name and her children’s names because petitioner is a domestic violence victim; her abuser knows all her identifying information; and she fears that her and her children’s lives and safety are in serious jeopardy unless she and her children change their names. Therefore she also requests, as essential to their safety, that notice of their name changes not be (1) given to her daughter’s father, the abuser, (2) published or (3) maintained as a court record accessible to the public. She attests that if the name changes are made public or disseminated, her “attacker will find out,” and her and her children’s safety will remain in jeopardy.

A Kings Domestic Violence Lawyer said that, in addition to petitioner’s personal knowledge of the father’s abuse over the course of two years and his persistent, continuing threats to kill her, hearsay evidence indicates he also has a long criminal record and is wanted by the State of Georgia, her former residence, on charges of sex crimes, assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm, and carjacking. On October 16, 2003, the New York County Family Court issued an order of protection requiring the father to stay away from petitioner and her children, whose residence the court kept confidential, and refrain from threats, intimidation, or any criminal offense against her.

The issue in this case is whether petitioner’s petition for change of name should ne granted.