New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
A Kings Domestic Violence Lawyer said that, this court is called upon inter alia to make certain decisions based upon a dispute involving allegations that a mother, through her actions, actively and passively alienated and influenced a child to the point that the child may no longer have any inclination or desire to see her father again. As equally important, the court must also determine the credibility of claims of egregious domestic violence during a long-term marriage of 31 years alleged to have been perpetrated against the mother, herself an advocate for the rights of women in divorce actions.
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, the parties were married in August 1973. The wife is presently 52 years of age and the husband is presently 56 years of age. On the date of their marriage, plaintiff was 22 years of age and a college graduate. Defendant was then 18 years of age and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties, to wit: the eldest daughter, age 32; the eldest son, age 26; the youngest son, age 20; and the youngest daughter, age 13. The two youngest children, the youngest son (presently age 20) and the youngest daughter (presently age 13), remain unemancipated. During the course of the litigation the youngest son resided in Israel or was a resident student at a university. It appears the youngest son is fully and voluntarily supported by the father and does not permanently reside with either party, although he does reside with the mother during the summer recess from school.
A Kings Order of Protection Lawyer said that, the husband commenced this action in December 2004 after the wife withdrew an action commenced in November 2004. The parties litigated in Family Court from November 10, 2004, through January 31, 2005. The husband also brought a writ of habeas corpus under a separate index number against the wife and her mother which was dismissed. The Family Court action was consolidated into the Supreme Court action, on consent. The husband was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on June 10, 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce (get). A law guardian, was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator, was appointed by the court.
A Kings Family Lawyer said that, on November 29, 2005, the day set for trial on the issue of custody, all issues of custody and visitation were resolved by stipulation on the record. The agreement inter alia provided that the parties would share joint decision making of the youngest daughter, age 13, that the wife would have physical custody, there would be a parent coordinator and that the husband, the wife and child would separately enroll in therapy. The wife voluntarily, without prejudice, withdrew her request for a temporary order of protection and same was vacated, on consent. The agreement further provided for supervised visitation and a mechanism for the child and father to re-establish their relationship.
The issues before this court which were tried are: equitable distribution, maintenance, child support, and counsel and expert fees. The gravamen of the parties’ dispute is as a result of the bifurcated custody agreement entered into by the parties on November 29, 2005, and the adamant refusal of the child to visit with the father. The wife requests that the court grant her a disproportionate share of equitable distribution based upon egregious conduct by the husband. The father requests that the court take into account, in its financial decision including the maintenance, child support and equitable distribution, the child’s refusal to see him and the mother’s support, encouragement and manipulation of events. The father alleges that the mother’s acts of encouraging alienation constitute egregious conduct.
The issue in this case is whether the father’s requests that the court take into account, in its financial decision including the maintenance, child support and equitable distribution, the child’s refusal to see him and the mother’s support, encouragement and manipulation of event should be granted.
Especially troubling to this court is this court’s belief that the mother has, by her own exaggerated actions, manipulated the court process, the child and the father; the court fears that reconciliation between the child and the father will be difficult. The father has, through his actions, exacerbated the situation by exhibiting a lack of control and a history of poor judgment when dealing with not only the wife’s dysfunctional behavior throughout the marriage, but his own dysfunctional behavior and inability to control his anger with outbursts of rage, sometimes culminating in incidents of domestic violence directed toward the wife. This court takes the personal view that in a civilized society even one act of violence against a spouse is violative of human dignity and damaging to society and the individual. The court must note that the court recognizes that the acts that the wife describes, if she were found to be truthful, may rise to the level of egregious conduct.
Uniquely, the court has not only had the opportunity to see the mother as a witness, but also had an opportunity to view her mother (the maternal grandmother) who plays a major (if not too major) role in this child’s life, as well as the child on three separate occasions in camera. During the course of the proceedings as the maternal grandmother faced cross examination, her testimony was halted and the grandmother was hospitalized for allegedly extremely high blood pressure. The mother too was hospitalized during the trial, although the exact reasons for the hospitalization were never disclosed. The mother who exhibited to this court inappropriate behavior on a frequent basis engaged in both pre-trial litigation and trial tactics, which prolonged and delayed the litigation, and added greatly to the cost. The father too, although appearing docile and calm in court, clearly could be agitated at times, or even inappropriately indifferent to realizing that his behavior and conduct were a contributing factor to the child’s reaction to him and her susceptibility to the actions of the mother.
As the husband continued to expend time and efforts in the development of these business enterprises, it appears that the wife became more involved in raising the children and taking care of the home, obtaining two degrees, and nurturing what she described as “her organization”.
Although the wife claims that the husband was the individual in control throughout the marriage, her own testimony, behavior and written documentation lead this court to find that claim without merit. In fact, it is clear to the court that while describing a multitude of “wonderful”, “fabulous” people who she has found along the way to assist in the husband’s practice, the selection, purchase and location of the marital residence, keeping him in dental school, all the while the wife claims throughout she was at the economic peril and power of the husband (a concern that permeated the marriage). The checks on the joint checking account were more often than not written in her handwriting. Demands for $100,000.00 in monies for her own security were met (although the wife’s explanation of the utilization of those funds is inconsistent) as well as $30,000.00 in diamonds, hidden in shoes in case of the need to flee, as a result of any potential international persecution. The husband voluntarily gave the wife a 9% interest in the health related facilities even though the wife claimed she did not want them because she always feared the husband would be indicted. According to the husband, 9% is the maximum percentage the wife could have by Health Department regulations. The real property in which the dental practice is housed is in the wife’s name, as is a cooperative apartment in Brooklyn.
In order to prevent further assault form domestic violent acts of your husband, seek the help of a Kings Order of Protection Attorney and Kings Domestic Violence Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates in order to file case.