Articles and Publications. Russian Divorce.

Page 35 from 51

Father Not a Danger to His Children

Elliot S. Schlissel

James C. was convicted in 2007 of patronizing under age prostitutes. As a result of this conviction, a Dutchess County Social Worker and Family Court Judge had him removed from his home in Poughkeepsie for a period of three years. James spent a year in jail. After spending a year in jail, he pled guilty in New York County to second-degree rape of a fourteen-year-old girl. He also pled guilty to patronizing a seventeen-year-old prostitute.

The Appellate Division (an Appeals Court) reversed the Family Court ruling in 2010 that prevented him from seeing his children. By that time, his wife and four children had moved to Canada.

New York Court of Appeals

James C. told New York’s highest court that he did not present a danger to his children. He argued that the county officials were mistaken when they reached a conclusion that allowing him to return home from jail would constitute child neglect by him and his wife. James is currently waiting for a decision from the Court of Appeals as to whether he can see his children.

The Law Office of Elliot Schlissel has been protecting fathers’ rights for more than thirty years. We litigate divorce proceedings, orders of protection, child abuse and child neglect cases, ACS and CPS problems, and we actively litigate all types of issues involving child support, visitation and custody.

We also represent our clients in no-fault divorces, regarding paternity issues and spousal maintenance (alimony) issues.... Read More »

Constructive Abandonment (Sexual Abandonment Denied)

Elliot S. Schlissel

Justice Bruno sits in a Supreme Court located in Nassau County, New York. Last summer he made an interesting decision on a case that was before him. A man brought a divorce lawsuit against his wife. The grounds for divorce was constructive abandonment. (Sexual abandonment by the spouse for a period in excess of one year).

The man testified his wife had refused to have sexual relations with him for a period of twelve years. His wife testified that she never refused to have sexual relations with him. Judge Bruno found each of the parties credible in their testimony.

In his decision, he stated, “on balance, these competing versions of the relationship of the parties in and of itself is a wash.” “Put another way, plaintiff has not established a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that there was a constructive abandonment here where there is even balance of evidence the court is required to find for the defendant.”

Civil Case Evidence Standards

In a civil case, the standard a plaintiff must prove is called a preponderance of the evidence. This can be explained as the scales of justice, with more evidence on one side than the other. This is different than a criminal case, where a case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the district attorney’s office must obtain a unanimous jury decision.

Constructive abandonment issues involve what takes place in a married couples bedroom. These are almost always “he said, she said” cases.

Irreconcilable Differences

Under the new ground for divorce called irreconcilable differences, these issues are no longer significant. Under the new irreconcilable differences ground for divorce in New York, one party must simply allege that irreconcilable differences between the spouses have existed for a period of more then six months. This simplifies the grounds issue in divorce situation.

Long Island Divorce Lawyers

We are divorce lawyers and our office is on Long Island. We litigate all ... Read More »

A LESSON LEARNED ABOUT RISK PERHAPS NOT FULLY LEARNED

I thought we all could use a break from taxes and this issue returns to economic matters discussed in earlier issues dealing with the sub-prime crisis.
The sub-prime crisis and Great Recession caused most to step back from risk taking and chasing returns, and to seek safer harbors for investments. For a time people were repeating the old adage “it is better to obtain a return of your principal than a return on your principal.” Yet, as the U.S. economy slowly seemed to be improving, investors became impatient with historically low returns on safe investments cause by the Federal Reserve’s continuing non-restrictive monetary policy. Investors once again began to think that the extra return afforded in less safe investments is obtained for free. They began again underestimating the added risk from chasing higher returns. Greater risk taking came back in vogue and was evident in investor behavior:
• Pushing up the stock market on profits generated by most companies through cost cutting, not revenue growth
• Fleeing the low interest US environment to higher returns and risk in emerging and developing markets.
• Pouring money into highly volatile alternative investments such as commodities.
• Finding allure in the higher returns promised in junk bonds.

The commodity market swoon last week has shaken confidence and investors are again seeking respite from volatility but a review of the nature of risk seems appropriate.
RISK IS A NORMAL ASPECT OF LIFE
Things will go wrong and that is risk. Just yesterday I was about to leave my home to visit my mom on mother’s day. I pushed the button to activate my garage door opener and nothing happened because the spring on the door had snapped. Garage door springs don’t snap often for any one homeowner, but across the nation many snap every day and every time I leave home that risk presents although I do not consciously think about it every day. If the risk were not tolerable, I could learn how to... Read More »

HEWLETT, N.Y. There was a violent armed robbery at a jewelry store on Long Island

Early Wednesday evening on April 20, 2011, three gunmen burst in, one of them making a beeline for an 8-year-old boy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nassau County Police say three men with guns went into the store at about 6:30 p.m.

TAX CRIMES: KICKING THE HORNET’S NEST Both Lawyer and Client Can Be Stung in an IRS Investigation*

A divorce case is often shrouded in a fog of anger and suspicion. Suspicion begets accusation, and truth frequently becomes a victim of mistaken memory or intentional distortion. Groping in the fog becomes dangerous for both spouses and lawyers when accusations involve the parties’ tax filings. Family lawyers must be alert to potential tax crimes and understand that the objectives in the divorce proceeding may clash with protective measures designed to mitigate potential criminal tax violations.
Accusations about tax matters may involve unreported income, claimed deductions for personal living expenses, false statements to tax authorities, unreported foreign bank accounts, and/or specific transactions or other tax-related items. The accusations may all have financial implications for the divorce case, affecting such issues as the amount of alimony and the distribution of assets, as well as the credibility of the spouses in the eyes of the court. Implications on the tax side involve more than financial concerns, however. If accusations are provably true and become known to the IRS, the client may face incarceration and increased tax liability, plus civil and criminal monetary penalties. Although state divorce proceedings and mediation mandate disclosure of relevant information, criminal tax defense emphasizes legally limiting disclosure of potentially incriminating evidence. Thus, there is a conflict of purposes as well as a disharmony of consequences between divorce representation and a criminal tax defense. Read More »

Page 35 from 51

⏪

⏩