New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

New York has noticed that increasingly steps have to be taken to protect victims of domestic violence not just from the abusers themselves, but from prejudice from others. One example of prejudice against the victims of domestic violence is in housing. Frequently, victims of domestic violence find themselves evicted from their homes because of the disturbances that are caused by the very violence that they are victims of. The victims of domestic violence are not just victimized by their abusers, but often by the communities that claim to be helping them.

On January 5, 2006, the Federal Violence Against women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) were signed into law in an attempt to solve the problem of landlords trying to evict the victims of domestic violence because of the acts of the abusers. On April 1, 2008, a long time victim of documented domestic violence was involved in a dispute with her abuser at the location where the victim maintains a residency. Her apartment, which also happens to be a New York Housing Authority property, is not shared by her ex-boyfriend who has abused her since November of 2006.

Continue reading

A 25-year old woman entered into marriage without knowing what’s in there for her. Sources said her marriage has a history of domestic offense perpetrated by the husband upon the wife. No longer able to take the abusive acts, the wife filed a case against her husband, which resulted to the husband being committed to incarceration for one hundred and eighty days.

The wife obtained an order of protection for one year prohibiting her husband from assaulting, menacing, harassing or recklessly endangering her and their children. With her husband in imprisoned, the wife thought she was safe. To her disbelief, one night, her husband escaped jail, went to her house, and harassed and annoyed her by moving her car out of the driveway to a towing zone. The husband also threatened to kill his wife and their children. The husband, according to sources, climbed into the wife’s window from the fire escape, but when their 15-year-old son saw his father enter the residence, he chased his father out of the residence. Because there was also threat of harm and abuse to their children, the wife also obtained a protective order for her husband to stay away from their children.

Continue reading

In this child advocacy hearing, the child is represented by their own attorney. The parents have their own representation, and Clinton County Department of Social Services is also represented. Lastly, the child’s great aunt who wants to get custody of him is represented. The child’s great aunt has filed a petition stating that his parents are incapable of caring for him and that she wants to have full custody. His great Aunt contends that the child was born with a disease called gastroschisis. Gastroschisis is a life threatening condition wherein he must be monitored intensely and daily medical care is a necessity. The great aunt maintains that she has the time and resources to provide this care and his parents do not. Further, she maintains that because of domestic violence inside the home between the parents, that the child would be better served if he was in her care.

The great aunt filed her petition on November 9, 2010. On November 10, 2010 the Court directed the Clinton County Department of Social Services to conduct an investigation into the parental care of this child. The report was turned in on November 16, 2010 and was seven pages.

Continue reading

On a lovely day in August of 1991, a young mother married a man from Poughkeepsie, New York. At the time of her marriage the woman had a young son who was only a few months old. Shortly after their marriage in 1991, the mother had another son. This son was the biological child of the man from Poughkeepsie. He was born in June of 1994. Unfortunately, the marriage did not last. The couple divorced in April of 1996.

Although, they divorced, the couple continued to have a positive relationship as far as the boys were concerned. The older boy was led to believe that the father was his natural father. This belief has never altered. When the couple divorced, they agreed to continue the father and son relationship that they had maintained while living together for the first six years of the boy’s life. The divorce settlement treated both boys as if the father was the biological father of both of the boys. Therefore, the father agreed in the divorce settlement that he would pay child support for both of the boys, in the sum of $750.00 each per month. Under the custody agreement, neither parent was designated as the primary physical custodian of the children. The children spent an equal amount of time with both the mother and the father. The father never treated the older boy any differently than he did the younger boy who was his biological son.

Continue reading

On November 4, 2010, a mother requested that the Supreme Court Third Department, of the City of New York Appellate Division review the case of the custody condition of two of her three children. The mother is currently living with her grandmother who is in poor health and her youngest son from a different relationship. They live in a neighborhood which has been defined as having “questionable safety” by testimony of the courts. She depends on her relatives to support her. She has only seen the children a few times since custody of them was awarded to her ex-boyfriend. She has been known to travel to Atlanta, Georgia to visit with the father of her youngest son. [78 A.D.3d 1259] The mother alleges that she is afraid to go to Broome County New York because she is afraid of the father of her first two children. She advised that when she has gone there, they have met in public places. She is seeking a review of her case based on the contention that she is a battered woman. Her contention is made under New York’s domestic violence laws that the Supreme Court has created an Integrated Domestic Violence Part to handle the unique circumstances surrounding cases that have an element of domestic violence. In order for her case to qualify, she would have to prove that there is a preponderance of evidence that point the court to defer to the Supreme Court to evaluate the evidence in this case. While the mother alleged mental abuse and that he had shaken the daughter, the mother had never filed a police report. She had also never filed a complaint in Family Court against the father. The more serious allegations, those of sexual abuse involving the father and the daughter were found to be completely false. The Supreme Court ordered that both children be examined by professionals to determine if they were abused. This appellate section reviewed Supreme Court reports about factual and credibility determinations and determined that the allegations of physical domestic violence in this case were unfounded.

The mother also stated that she did not feel that the courts had given enough credence to her allegations that the father of her first two children had abused her and her daughter. However, in spite of these allegations, the mother did not feel that she was in so much danger when she traveled to New York that she required the father to meet her at a police station. While it is true that the mother’s allegations of domestic violence were discredited in court, she still maintains that she suffered from domestic violence at the hands of the father of her first two children. She stated that she suffered mental abuse and that she had seen him shake their daughter. Both admitted to using corporal punishment, but the mother stated that it was at the insistence of the father. The father stated that as the children have gotten older, the need for corporal punishment has decreased.

Continue reading

Marriages are meant to last forever except when it is marred by domestic violence, like what happened to a couple who was married 31 years.

The parties, both Jews, were married in August 1973. On the date of their marriage, the husband was 22 years old and a college graduate while the wife was 18 and a high school graduate. During the course of the marriage, four children were born to the parties.

Continue reading

On June 3, 2010, New York City Child Services filed petitions against two parents pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The petitions charged that the father failed to provide a minimum degree of care to their three children because he committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children and the mother failed to ensure that the children attended school regularly. There is also an insinuation in the wording of the procedural history which states that the “petitions alleged that the mother and father failed to provide a minimum degree of care to their three children since the father committed acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children.” This wording should have been a red flag. Since the New York City Family Court objective is to keep families together if at all possible and not to hold the victims of domestic abuse responsible for the actions of the abuser in the household.

In this case, the New York City Child Services disregarded all of the guidelines established by the New York City Family Court. Upon the initial filing of the petition, the court granted New York City Child Services request for the removal of the children and directed that the maternal grandmother could care for them. It further ordered that a temporary order of protection be issued against the father and that he was to stay away from the children and maternal grandmother except for supervised visitation. Shortly afterward, the grandmother took the children with her to visit relatives in Pennsylvania. It is clear that New York City Child Services knew about the trip, it is not clear if New York City Child Services authorized it. Needless to say, it did not matter; the children were clearly in safe hands. When the maternal grandmother returned to New York City, she only brought the youngest child back with her. The older school aged children were safe and staying with family members. They were enrolled in school and were happy by all accounts.

Continue reading

Domestic violence and physical assault can result to a lot of other inconveniences other than the fact that your life is already endangered. Domestic violence for instance doesn’t just stay inside the house. It goes out to the neighbours and even to the victim’s relatives who live far way. This particular case did not only affect the victim’s physical and emotional state, it also affected her community and her chances of staying in a community wherein she can afford and identify because of her years of stay.

Continue reading

The United States Constitution is the highest law in the land. All other laws are derived from its provisions and are based on it. What happens though when a law is challenged as being against the Constitution? Can a law actually be challenged as being against the Constitution?

On December 4, 1998, the District Court of Nassau County, New York, made a decision on one such matter. The issue in this case was whether or not two provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law were actually constitutional. The man who raised the challenge said that because these two provisions did not provide for an adversarial evidentiary hearing to be raised by the defendant, they violated the right of an individual to due process. The man did not argue that those provisions were unconstitutional in his situation but that they were unconstitutional, period.

Continue reading