Domestic Violence

Published on: April 13, 2012

Interesting Case Shows the Evolution of Divorce Law

by Stephen Bilkis

It is amazing just how much domestic law and divorce law has changed over the past 50 years. Prior to 1967, a married couple who wanted to get divorced could only obtain a divorce on the grounds of adultery. If neither spouse committed adultery, the courts of the state would not allow the couple to divorce. In 1967, New York legislature added the additional grounds for divorce under mental cruelty. Section 170 of the Domestic Relations law was amended to state that a divorce may be maintained by a husband or a wife if they were dissolving the marriage on the grounds that they were suffering cruel and inhuman treatment at the hands of the other spouse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this treatment would have to be so egregious that the conduct endangered the physical or mental well-being of the abused party and made it unsafe or improper for the couple to live together. These were also the grounds for any kind of legal separation.

In 1970, a case came before the courts of New York that dealt with a petition for a divorce. The couple was married in New York in 1957. The husband was 28 years old and the wife was 37. She had a 15-year-old son by a previous marriage. The couple had a daughter, who was ten years old at the time of the trial. The pair had a volatile relationship by any standards with four separations and three reconciliations between 1961 and 1967. Throughout their relationship, they only testified to one act of domestic violence. This incident was the cause for the first separation. In 1961, the husband was in the kitchen of the home with some friends. The daughter began to cry, and the husband told her to be quiet. The wife came in to the kitchen and struck him. She then told him to get out of the house. The husband filed for divorce in 1970 claiming mental anguish. The courts determined that even under the changes in law in 1967 that would allow a divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment, the arguments that this pair had were not serious enough to meet the minimal qualifications to get a divorce. The court stated that the responsibility for managing their differences was not the responsibility of the courts.

Rather, the court pointed out that it was the responsibility of the two married people to learn to get along with each other without relying on the courts to step in and solve their problems. The exact term was that the courts of justice have no cure for the ills that these people bring upon themselves. They must minister unto themselves to solve their differences. This is in stark contrast to the customs of today. Now a couple can divorce for any reason. There are no such stipulations that must be met in order for a divorce to be petitioned. A couple may still obtain a divorce under this type of situation, even if the other party does not want to get a divorce. This change in the law was enacted to protect the victims of domestic violence. An uncontested divorce action is possible without any kind of violence, adultery, or other misdeed.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Court Hears Divorce Case Based on Serious Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were both born in Albania. Plaintiff first moved to the United States on 14 December 1989, after receiving a green card through the American Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. He became a United States citizen in 1997. Plaintiff lived and worked in the United States continuously from late 1989 until the date of the commencement of the herein divorce action, only returning to Albania for brief vacations over the years (approximately the first six years of the marriage). Plaintiff is 48 years of age and defendant is 36 years of age.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court is called upon to determine custody of five (5) minor children and whether defendant is entitled to a five (5) year stay away order of protection against plaintiff. The court has bifurcated the issues of custody, visitation and order of protection.

The matter was tried on an expedited basis given the seriousness of the allegations. Defendant-wife (hereinafter referred to as defendant) against plaintiff-husband (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) was issued a temporary order of protection in Family Court, Kings County on 4 December 2007, the Family Court petitions were consolidated into the instant divorce action by order of this court dated 2 January 2008. The court has bifurcated the issues of custody and visitation and a final order of protection.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Case Based on Domestic Violence

by Stephen Bilkis

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, the two youngest children, 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 New York Criminal Lawyer said 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 10 November 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 wife was granted a divorce, on consent, after proof, on 10 June 2005, on the grounds of constructive abandonment and shortly thereafter the husband gave the wife a Jewish divorce. A law guardian was appointed for the youngest daughter, and a neutral forensic evaluator, was appointed by the court.

On 29 November 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. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said that 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.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Convicted Felon Passes Bar and Wants to Practice in NY

by Stephen Bilkis

What defines good moral character? How long after a youthful infraction, has good moral character been restored? Is it ever possible to know? What types of jobs are appropriate for someone who committed a felony, served their prison sentence, and completed college? How long does the smear of a felony conviction ruin a person’s name? All of these questions are valid ones. There are no set answers. So when a convicted violent felon is released from prison, completes college, and then law school, passes the New York State Bar Exam, the problem becomes one of moral character. The New York Bar rules state that no one will be admitted to the bar who is not of good moral character to practice law. So what establishes his moral character. Even though his crime was violent and drug related, is it enough that the offense occurred thirty years ago?

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question at hand is best illustrated using a case that was heard in New York. A man was convicted 30 years ago of running a Quaalude sales ring. At first, he was making large sums of money and living a lavish lifestyle. But, as the police began to close in on his operation and his life was falling apart, he took a gun and convinced his girlfriend that he wanted to see her. Once he was with her, he took her captive and held her at gunpoint. He told her that he was going to commit suicide and she believed that he intended to kill her as well. In an attempt to save her own life, when he went to the bathroom, she jumped from the second story window to the ground below. She was severely injured, but survived. As she was running from the location, he fired several bullets at her. He did not hit her with any of them.

He was arrested for the ,offenses and went to Federal Prison first. He was also convicted at the state level and served his sentenced concurrently. Unbelievably, he was released after only seven years on a 12 ½ to 25 year sentence. He completed college and law school. He took the bar exam and passed it. He applied for acceptance to the bar in several states. In all but New York, he was accepted. After all, his crime was committed more than thirty years before he passed the bar. Since that one infraction, he has not committed any crimes and has led an exemplary life.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Admist Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff (husband) and defendant (wife) were married on 17 July 1997. The parties have two (2) infant children. The above entitled divorce action was filed by plaintiff on 30 June 2005.

Both plaintiff and defendant blame each other for their failed marriage. Both plaintiff and defendant each allege that the other was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive during the course of the marriage. During the pendency of the herein matter, based on criminal charges pending against both plaintiff and defendant, the physical custody of the infant children was changed by the Court twice. The defendant has had temporary physical custody of the infant children since 15 April 2008.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the Court conducted a non-jury trial with respect to the matrimonial action on March and April 2010. Plaintiff called one witness to testify at the trial while defendant called four witnesses. At the request of the Attorney for the Children, the herein Court conducted in-camera interviews of the two (2) infant children.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Considers Revocation of Gun License in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 29, 2006, a man was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife. His wife told the New York Police Officers that during this dispute, her husband punched and kicked her and that she punched and kicked him. Pursuant to New York Law, the officers discovered that the husband had a residence permit for a target pistol. When they collected the firearms in the home, they discovered that the husband was also in possession of two long guns, rifles, for which he did not have a permit. The husband’s pistol license was suspended pending an investigation into the matter.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 30, 2006, a Temporary Order of Protection was issued in Kings county New York for the wife against the husband and for the husband against the wife. These protection orders were issued following several additional domestic disputes involving this couple. On September 19, 2006, after a heated verbal dispute with his wife in a public restaurant, the husband was arrested. The arrest was eventually voided. However the fact that he had a history of domestic violence and had been in possession of two long guns illegally in his home, his license to have any guns was revoked.

On December 30, 2006, the man requested an administrative hearing in order to repeal the revocation of his gun permit. His argument stemmed from his assertion that his wife had caused the domestic violence incidents and that he had never been notified of a renewal date for his long guns. The husband stated that he had not been aware that he was supposed to notify the police department of any arrests or orders of protection as they related to his possession of guns.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue Where Domestic Violence Incident Occured Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Often, questions of law arise in family violence situations that are unique because they are involving a domestic situation that is volatile and fluid in nature. Families are rarely stationary. The question of jurisdiction and venue become relevant when a family primarily resides in one state, but encounters a violent episode while out of state visiting relatives or on vacation. The law is expected to draw a line that determines who is responsible for protecting the victim or victims as the case may be. The law in New York has a long history of struggling with this concept.

In 1962, New York had a family court law that stated that the victim of domestic violence would have to have their case heard in the family court. This decision was designed to decriminalize family violence. However, the effect that it had was far from the one intended. Rather than providing additional options for handling abuse and domestic violence, it created a situation where criminals could elude criminal prosecution. In 1977, the state revised this law. This revision stated that the Family Court and the criminal court would have concurrent jurisdiction. In 1978, the law was revised further to include the three day rule. It stated that the victim had three days following an incident to decide if they wanted to pursue the case in either criminal court or family court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant’s choice of either criminal or family court became final after the three days. These amendments were an attempt to provide more effective relief to victims of domestic violence. The idea was that they would provide more remedies to the victims of domestic assaults. In 1994, the state legislature created the 1994 Act. It eliminated the three-day choice of venue. The 1994 Act allowed true concurrent jurisdiction to exist. There was no longer the chance that an offender could escape criminal punishment if the victim chose to have the case handled by family court. Since it is a true concurrent jurisdictional provision, a victim can proceed in both criminal and civil court at the same time.

In 1999, amended the Family Court Act 812 and the Criminal Procedure Law § 530.11 to enable a complainant to proceed in family court and have the criminal court continue to hear the criminal offense that was involved. This legal amendment was created to clarify the intent of the 1994 Act. It is generally assumed that the legislative history of domestic violence laws in New York demonstrate a desire to expand the jurisdiction of Family Court and strengthen the remedies available to the victims.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Defendant Tries to Manipulate Court System to Intimidate Wife

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence issues are complicated. For many years, it was easier for the American judicial system to simply not deal with it. The political climate has changed and with it, the domestic violence laws have changed. We now understand that domestic violence is about control. Sometimes, an abuser cannot accept that the control over the other person has been removed by the state. In some cases, the aggressor attempts to control the court by manipulating the legal system. This type of behavior offensive to the judges and will turn the judges favor away from that person.

In one case like this, which was heard in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County on October 1, 2010, the situation began on May 5, 2010. A man filed a petition to the court on June 30, 2010 claiming that his wife had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx. However, neither party appeared in court and the petition was dismissed. On July 12, 2010, the man filed a second petition alleging that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment. This time he claimed that the lock out had happened in February of 2010. This time, the wife appeared in court, but the husband did not. The court dismissed the man’s petition again.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man filed a third petition to the court. This time he claimed that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment on July 16, 2010. In this petition, he stated that he had called the police. When the police arrived, they ordered him to leave. Both parties appeared in court on July 23, 2010 in reference to this petition. At that time, the court was notified that on July 16, 2010, Bronx County Family Court had issued each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The wife’s Protection Order directed the husband to stay away from the wife and the three minor children who live with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue. These orders expressly stated that the husband was excluded from that residence. He was also ordered to stay away from the wife’s place of work and not to have any communication with any of the people who lived in the apartment. This is most certainly why the police ordered the husband to leave when they were called to the apartment. Family Court did order that the father could have visitation with his infant child at a location away from the apartment. At that time, the court order for visitation listed the husband’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx. The court determined that Family Court was the best resolution to the dispute and dismissed the petition that the husband had filed.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The discretion of Family Court in New York to handle incidents that have occurred in other states or even other countries has led to many courtroom discussions. The Family Court laws in New York are clear in that they do not limit jurisdiction to events that simply occur in New York. In these laws, New York Criminal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with New York Family Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the deciding factor becomes whether or not the family resides in New York. In a case where the entire family no longer resides in New York, the person who is being served with the New York Family Court Documents must be served in New York. The reason for this division is that if the offender is not in New York, there is no imminent threat of further domestic violence to the family. However, if all parties are in New York long enough for the alternate person to be served, then the threat has continued. If the threat has continued, then jurisdiction relies on New York to protect the family from violence.

On December 21, 1989, a New York family who had moved to Florida had an altercation in Florida. During the altercation, the victim claims that the abuser, her husband, grabbed her by the hair pulling it out, slapped her and threw her onto the back patio of their house. The victim claims that also in Florida on January 16, 1990, the husband beat their six year old son, bruising his back, legs, and buttocks. The victim also claims that during the week of January 21, 1990, that her husband watched as she tried to close a window for the second time. He told her that she will never live to do it a third time.

The victim advised the court in New York that she and her family had moved to Florida in July of 1989. She stated that she had been afraid that if she did not move with him that he would take her children away. On February 1, 1990, shortly after the last incidence of violence, the victim moved back to New York with her children. She was afraid for her safety, so she moved into a shelter in Monroe County. On February 16, 1990, while she was living in the shelter, she was granted a temporary order of protection. It was later extended to April 27, 1990. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the husband was served in New York since he has weekly, supervised visitation with the children.

Published on: April 8, 2012

When Should the Law Intervene In Domestic Violence Cases?

by Stephen Bilkis

Few people realize that they can be charged with child abuse or child neglect if they have a fight with someone in front of the child. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that most states currently have statutes that allow parents to be charged with child abuse or neglect if they are involved in a domestic dispute in the presence of the children. This is true, even if the child is not involved in the assault. If one spouse assaults the other, and one or more of their children are in the room with them, the primary aggressor in the assault can be charged with child abuse or neglect. There does not have to be any physical contact between the parent and the child. There does not even have to be any verbal assault of the child to qualify under the law.

Because of this change in the law in recent years, many parents have been charged with child abuse or neglect. In some cases, it is just not appropriate. Every family has disputes at one time or another. The ability of law enforcement to charge a parent with abuse or neglect for arguing with their spouse in the presence of the children is inappropriate. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said many psychologists suggest that allowing children to see their parents disagree and then work out the issue together is important to teach children how to handle conflict in their own relationships as they mature. The obvious issue here is that if the parents become violent with each other, they start the cycle of domestic violence that may continue with their own children.

So when is it appropriate for the state to intervene? This line is blurry. Some people believe that state intervention is important at the verbal abuse stage and others believe that there should be physical contact between the spouses before the state makes any charges. Nevertheless, most states have criminal statutes that address verbal assaults. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said this type of assault usually involves placing another person in fear of an imminent physical assault. That is the difference. If the spouses are merely arguing to work out a problem, they may be angry at each other; but neither party is in fear that the other will actually harm them.