Illinois Divorce in Russia
The marriage between me and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX was registered in Marriage Palace № 4 of Moscow, register record № 2396.
Our marriage was terminated on December 29, 2010 by Court Order № XXXXXXXXXX of the Department of Family Cases of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA. The Court Order became effective; it was apostilled as required by the Hague Convention of October 5, 1961 and accompanied by translation into Russian certified by the RF Consulate as required by the laws of the Russian Federation.
According to Art. 160 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation termination of a marriage between citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign nationals outside the Russian Federation is recognized in the Russian Federation in case it complies with the laws of the relevant foreign state regulating the competent authorities that took the decision on termination of the marriage and other applicable laws.
According to Art. 415 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation foreign judgments of divorce are recognized in the Russian Federation and do not require any further proceedings in case at least one of the spouses resided outside the Russian Federation at the time of passing of the judgment and foreign judgments of divorce or annulment of marriage between citizens of the Russian Federation are recognized in the Russian Federation and do not require any further proceedings in case both spouses resided outside the Russian Federation at the time of passing of the judgment.
Therefore, the abovementioned judgment shall be recognized and enforced in the Russian Federation without any further proceedings subject to the appropriate legalization.
Chapter 4 of the Law “On Civil Records” regulates the state registration of divorces. In particular, according to Art. 31 of the Law a final judgment of divorce is the ground for registration of the divorce.
According to Art. ... Read More »
Mississippi Divorce in Russia is valid without additional requirements, ZAGS opinion
Suspects In Abuse Cases – Phone Calls are Taped
Domestic Violence
Men charged with assaulting and beating their wives and girlfriends seem to blabber mouths. “I need you to prepare the kids to start lying” was stated by one man to his girlfriend on these taped conversations. In another case the prisoner told his girlfriend “whatever you do, do not speak to the District Attorney.”
Scott Kesler, the Bureau Chief in the Queens District Attorney’s office stated the recording “revolutionized the way we were able to proceed against men in domestic violence cases. Mr. Kesler stated that we now have to ability “to prove what we’ve always suspected which is that defendants in domestic violence cases are in constant contact with their victims and they utilize the phone system to intimidate their victims and refuse to cooperate in their prosecution.
Orders of Protection
In virtually all domestic violence cases the abused individuals are given orders of protection preventing the abuser from having contact with them. These jail house calls are violation of the court ordered orders of protection and constitutes a crime in and of themselves.
In one case in Kings County the abuser called the victim 1,200 times while he was incarcerated. Sometimes the victims are so traumatized by these phone calls they refuse
to cooperate with the prosecutors. In these situations the District Attorneys office utilized the recordings to explain why the victims are refusing to testify.
In a case involving Mohammd Khan, who was charged with stabbing his wife in the head and shoulders with a meat cleaver. The wife testified she did not remember who her attacker was. The recordings showed that Mr. Khan ha... Read More »
Father’s Conduct Not Contemptuous
Prior Court Order
Judge Falanga took note that there had been a previous order making the father aware of the importance of maintaining a relationship between the mother and the child. However, Judge Falanga did not grant the mother’s application to find the father in contempt. The father suggested that an alternative to the Wednesday visitation, the mother have visitation with the child on Tuesdays. He claimed the mother refused to accept his offer of Tuesday visitation.
Judge Falanga found that although the father’s actions disrupted the visitation routine between the mother and the child his conduct did not rise to the level of being contemptuous. He stated “while visitation was a most precious right the child corresponding need to have normal socialization and age appropriate activities could not be held hostage to a very occasional and intermitant inability of the mother to visit. The mother’s motion to hold father in contempt was denied. Hooray for Judge Falanga!
Fathers’ Rights Law Firm in Nassau County
We litigate all types of father’s rights issues. We represent fathers in Nassau County, Kings County, Queens County and throughout the Metropolitan New York area. We litigate equitable distribution issues, spousal abuse, child support, child visitation, child custody and orders of protection. We protect our clients from allegations of child abuse.
We fight paternity proceedings in the family court. We deal with parental a... Read More »