"Valli Kane & Vagnini gives you the knowledge, courage and power to fight back!"

Foreign Divorce | Divorce Lawyer Long Island

Will a foreign divorce be recognized in the state of New York?  The first question that must be answered is what is a foreign divorce?  A foreign divorce is one granted from another state in the union or another country.  With respect to divorces from a sister state, under full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, New York will give grant full faith and credit to judgments from sister states. What if the judgment came from another country?  That was the issue presented to the Court in Ahmad v Khalil.

In this case, the parties were married in Jordan.  After two years, they moved to New York.  After approximately eight years, the mother moved back to Jordan with the children.  Father continued to provide financial support to his family.  A court in Jordan granted the Wife’s petition for divorce.  That divorce action dissolved the marriage but did not address issues relating to child support and distribution of assets.  The Husband commenced an action in Jordan relating to the custody of the children.  The Wife then starts an action in New York, seeking maintenance and child support.

Courts will generally accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity which is the equivalent of full faith and credit given by the Courts to judgments of sister states.   Absent a showing of fraud or some showing that recognizing a divorce from a foreign state would be against some strong public policy.  With respect to public policy, this exception is rarely used and only considered when the divorce in the foreign country is counter to fundamental notions of what is decent and just.  Therefore, for a court to refuse full recognition to a lawful foreign judgment, it must be demonstrated that he decree violates some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals or some deep-rooted tradition of the common good.  Essentially, Courts will generally look to validate and enforce foreign judgments.

In this case, the Wife attempted to set aside the Jordanian divorce decree by arguing a lack of due process.  She argued that in Jordan, a husband is allowed to obtain a divorce unilaterally without notice or consent of the wife.  The Court did not give much credit to this argument.  It appears that the wife actually started the divorce in Jordan and then withdrew her action there when she discovered that it was to her financial best interests to obtain a divorce decree in the State of New York.   Thus, the Court recognized the Jordanian divorce.

Though the divorce decree was recognized by the Court, there was martial property that was located in New York.  The Court allowed the wife to litigated the issue regarding the equitable distribution of the New York property as this court would be the most convenient court to hear this matter.  The Court declined to hear issues related to child support, maintenance and distribution of property in Jordan.  The Court reasoned that the children had lived and current live in Jordan.  There is Jordanian property to be disposed of and there are procedures in Jordan which the wife can avail herself to address these issues.

When faced with a foreign divorce, the going in position of the Courts will be that the divorce will be enforced absent a showing of fraud in the procurement of said divorce.  If your spouse comes home one day and announces that you have been divorced through a judgment from another country, see us immediately.  Typically we see this issue arise from divorce decrees granted in the Dominican Republic.  Swift motion practice will be needed to protect your rights.

Equitable Distribution Isn’t Necessarily Equitable Distribution

Many people believe that when you get divorced, especially after a long term marriage, your assets are split equally.  This is not true.  New York is an equitable distribution state, meaning that equity, or fairness, will decide how assets are to be split.  Who determines what’s fair or equitable? Well if the parties cannot amicably settle their dispute and come up with an accommodation between them, the Court will make that determination.   If you leave it to the Court, you may or may not get what you deem is appropriate at the parties in Cornish v. Cornish recently discovered.

The parties in the Cornish matter were married in 1991 with three children.  The wife was the monied spouse in this case and the husband was awarded, amongst other things, 30% of his wife’s pension, vice 50%.  He was also awarded 50% of the parties credit card debt.   The husband appeals seeking to modify the trial Court’s ruling increasing his share of the wife’s pension to 50%.  The first thing the husband needed to realize is that the Courts are accorded substantial deference in determining what distribution of the marital property is equitable.  Note the equitable standard which is based upon considerations of fairness and the respective situations of the parties.

The trial Court looked at the marriage.  Here, the husband was a stay at home father.  However, as the wife testified, the once the children reached school age, the wife implored the husband to find employment, which he declined despite the financial difficulties the family faced.  In addition to his refusal to earn a living and contribute financially to the family, it was ascertained that husband was an alcoholic and his alcoholism was contributing to his ability to find employment.  Additionally, the husband had inherited money.  Instead of using this money to assist the family, the Court found that he wasted his inheritance and in a few short months, it was gone.  Finally, the Court did not find the husband’s testimony regarding his job search credible.  Thus the Court, taking all of this into consideration, believed it was only fair that 30% of the pension go to the husband vice 50%.

In the same vein, the Court determined that the family’s finances were compromised by their use of credit cards to pay for family expenses.  However, the Court also found that the credit card was not only used for daily expenses, but that the husband used the cards for unnecessary expenses unduly burdening the already precarious family financial picture.  As a result, the Court awarded half of the debt to the husband.

Your behavior during the marriage is important when it comes to equitable distribution.  Keep in mind that marital property is divided between the parties and that not only will the Court divide property/assets, it will also divide liabilities. If you have a spouse, like in this case, who is wasting marital assets coupled with refusing to contribute to the marriage, the Court will take that into consideration when determining how to fashion an equitable distribution award.

Relocating With Your Child | Long Island Family Law Lawyer

After a divorce is complete, if there were children of the marriage, custody of the child was resolved. Typically, though not always, one parent is awarded residential custody of the child subject to visitation rights of the other party.  After some time passes, one question which may rise is it whether is it possible for the residential parent to move out of the state.  The appellate department discussed this issue in Batchelder v. Bonhotel.

In Bonhotel, Father and Mother, never married and had one child.  They separated and stipulated that Mother was to be the residential parent, subject to the visitation of rights of the Father.  Father was entitled to see his son every other weekend and one overnight every other week.  The Father was consistent with his visitation with the Court finding that the Father and son benefitted from a close relationship.  Two years later, the Mother lost her job and made plans to move out of New York to Alabama. She informs Father the night before her departure.  Father petitions the Court for residential custody of the child.

As a first step, to change the custody arrangement there must be a significant change of circumstance.  In this case, step one was easily met.   The Mother moving out of the state constituted a significant change of circumstances.  Therefore, the Court immediately turned its attention to whether the Mother could relocate with the child.  In making such a determination, the Mother bears the burden of proof that she should be allowed to move by a preponderance of evidence.  The Court will look at the following factors: (1) the relationship with the parents; (2) the effect of the move on the noncustodial parent; (3) the potential enhancement to the custodial parent and child due to the move; and (4) parents’ motives for seeking or opposing the move.

In this case, the Mother claimed that she was unemployed and had better prospects in Alabama with her fiancé.  With a little digging, it was discovered she recently met her fiancé online and was planning to stay at his residence.  It was also discovered that her ability to support herself and her son, in addition to the child support, was completely dependent on the fiancé.  Finally, and the fatal blow to the custody issue, the Court found that the Mother failed to foster a relationship between her son and the Father.  She had quit her job so that she could move to Alabama and failed to demonstrate that she was providing a stable environment for her son.  Evidence to support her lack of support between the son and the Father was the fact that she sprung the move on the Father the day before and refused to give the Father contact information regarding where she was going and how he could contact his son.   The Father, on the other hand, had a steady job, and though he had a girlfriend, was in a steady relationship providing a stable environment.  The key though was the Father’s willingness and work towards fostering a close relationship between his son and the Mother.  He explained that if the Mother were to leave for Alabama, he committed to skype sessions with his son to see his mother no less than two or three times a week.  As a result, the Court denied the Mother’s request to take the child out of the State and granted the Father’s request to change residential custody to the Father.

In this case, the Mother was unable to show how leaving the state would enhance the child’s life, and what I believe was the key to this ruling, the Mother failed to show how she planned on dealing with separation between the Father and his son.  Here the Mother was actively hostile to the Father and in no way fostered the relationship.  The lesson to take away from this ruling is that the Courts do not look favorably on a party who in any way interferes with the relationship between the child and your former spouse.  One can surmise that the uphill battle she had to move her son to Alabama was not made easier with her open hostility to the Father.

If you do want to move your child from the state, make sure that you have a well thought out plan which includes fostering the relationship between your child the non-custodial parent.  In addition, be ready to explain how moving your child out of state and away from the non-custodial parent is in the best interests, i.e., will advance the child’s education, financial welfare, and education. If you face any problems with relocation and child custody make sure to contact a divorce attorney a Long Island family divorce lawyer at Divins & Divins, P.C. for a free consultation.

Imputing Income on Long Island

A common fear some people have when they begin a divorce is that the monied spouse claims to have little or no income.  Essentially, since the spouse either works off the books or takes a lot of the earned money in cash, based on the tax returns, a party can make themselves look cash poor.  When it comes time for the divorce, now the true non monied spouse believes they are in a bind.  While difficult, all is not lost.  Courts will impute income and make an equitable award despite what is shown on the books, as the parties in Sotnik v. Zavilyansky found out.   In that case the husband claimed he made little to no money and thus could not pay for child support and attorney’s fees.  Further because of his income status, he wanted the marital house sold despite the fact that his son was not yet eighteen.

First, addressing the marital estate, Courts are slow to order the sale of the estate if there are minor children who are attending school.  What Courts try to do is allow the custodial parent exclusive occupancy of the estate.   The Court in Zavilyansky correctly stated that when determining the length of time that a custodial parent should be granted exclusive occupancy of the former marital residence,  the Court should balance the need of the custodial parent to occupy the marital residence against the financial need of the parties.  In this case, the Court awarded exclusive occupancy of the residence to the mother until the son turned eighteen, at which point the house was to be sold.  Typically, during this time, the mother will be completely responsible for the carrying costs of the house, i.e. she will pay for the mortgage, utilities and other costs associated with the home.  When her son turns eighteen, the house will be sold. She will first get a credit for all expenses she paid during the time she was in the home.  That money will be returned to her.  After that, any profits left over will then be divided between the parties.  Generally, the Courts will grant the person living in the home the right of first refusal to purchase the home.

Turning to the father’s income, it is well established that a Court need not rely upon a party’s own account for his or her finances but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated future earnings.  In other words, the Court may impute income to a person based on his or her employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends or relatives.  How is this accomplished?  As you may be aware, when you institute an action for divorce, the parties are required to file a statement of net worth.  That statement lists all of the expenses that the parties have to pay on a monthly basis.  When you add up all expenses, you come to a number that the household must pay per month.  From that number, at a bare minimum, you can then deduce what the household must earn, as a bare minimum, to meet these expenses.  Once this is done, the Court typically imputes that income to the parties.  So for example, if you have a couple living in Roslyn, in a house with a mortgage of approximately $5,000.00 a month, utilities, food, cable and other  normal every days expenses, and the monies spouse claims they only make $65,000.00 a year, the Court will ignore that party’s yearly income and impute income which makes more sense.

Finally, in the case we’re talking about, child support was awarded.  Typically, when child support is awarded, the payee is required to obtain life insurance to ensure that payments until the emancipation event occurs.  An emancipation event means the child has turned eighteen, moved out and has a full time job; joined the military or graduated college.  Typically, one can calculate the child support obligation and determine the obligation.  Once the obligation has been determined you can determine the amount of life insurance required. Now, you have two options as the one required to purchase life insurance.  First you can simply purchase a policy to cover your obligation.  Second, you can get permission to allow your obligation to slide downward every year.  For example, in this case, the husband’s child support obligation was $140,000.00.  After the first year, clearly, his obligation will be less than $140,000.00.  If you get permission to decrease your obligation every year, you will be allowed to decrease your life insurance policy every year by the amount you have already paid.  This will ensure that the beneficiary does not get a windfall in the event you pass away.

Imputing income is difficult but clearly not impossible.  While you can determine a potential minimum income that the monied spouse may be earning, imputing income is not the best solution however it is better than relying on the monied spouse’s statement of their income. Start gathering all the bills which are paid to keep your household running: mortgage payments, lights, gas, oil, phone, cable, food, car insurance, car payments, camp and anything else that can help give the Court a clearer picture of what your spouse earns. If you’re seeking assistance of any kind with Imputing income, please call a Long Island Divorce attorney at Divins & Divins, P.C. for a free consultation.

Joint Custody & Child Support in New York

Happy Children Playing Kids

Happy Children Playing Kids (Photo credit: epSos.de)

Amongst the hardest things to deal with when getting divorced is providing for the best interests of any children of the marriage.  What some parents immediately think about is child support. The parent who is deemed to be the residential parent is the parent entitled to child support.  While that is easy enough to understand, it becomes tricky when both parents are residential parents, i.e. the children live with both parents exactly fifty percent of the time.  Many parents do this under the misconception that if they split the children exactly fifty percent of the time, child support will not be an issue.  This is not true as the parties in Leonard v. Leonard, found out in June of 2013.

The parties began an action for divorce and the issue revolved around child support.  The father was granted sole legal custody of the children.  This means, that while the parties should endeavor to consult each other regarding major decisions affecting the children, in the event the parties cannot agree, the father is the one who has final decision making authority.  Despite this determination, the parties were granted joint residential custody of the children.  The custody arrangement called for the children to spend exactly half the time with the father, and half the time with the mother.  Father earned approximately $134,000.00 a year and the mother earned approximately $14,000.00 a year, though the court imputed $25,000.00 a year income on the mother.

It is well settled that in a shared residency arrangement, where neither party has the children for the majority of the time, the party with the higher income is deemed to be the noncustodial parent for purposes of child support.  Thus, the father, who made more money, was ordered to pay child support to the mother.  Here is the rational that the law relies on.  An award of child support will best ensure that the children of the marriage will receive the maximum benefit of their parents resources and continue to enjoy, as close as possible, their pre divorce standard of living.  In other words, the Court wants to ensure that the children can enjoy living with both parents as much as possible.

When dealing with custody of your children, people often think about joint custody, sole custody, shared custody and child support.  Here is a simple way to think about these complex issues.  First and foremost, where are your children going to sleep?  Both parents generally want to be the residential/custodial parent, i.e. the parent where the kids will reside.    The benefits of being declared the residential/custodial parent include, having your children live with you, final decision making authority, and child support.   Amazingly, child support is a battle.  It is simply amazing the amount of cases where the issue is simply the payment child support.  One way people try and avoid this is to split the children equally.  As we have seen, this is a misguided approach to avoiding child support.  First and foremost, it requires the children to move from parent to parent practically every week.  Once the children are school aged, this may not be in their best interest.  Additionally, you need to consider whether avoiding or getting child support by disrupting your children’s schedule is what’s best for them.  In all likelihood, it is not.  Considering custody in a divorce and need help? Call a Long Island divorce lawyer at Divins & Divins, P.C., for a free consultation and we’ll help resolve all of your questions and concerns.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Paying for College After the Divorce

Main Tower of State University of New York Sys...

Main Tower of State University of New York System Offices in Albany, NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most divorces can be settled obviating the need for protracted and costly litigation.  When the parties reach a settlement it is important that the agreement provides for the well-being of the parties and, if applicable, the children of the marriage.  What parties sometimes over look is what is going to be in their best interests ten or fifteen years in the future.  If you enter into an agreement which is silent on a topic which, ten years in the future, is now important to you, you may have to go back to court.  This is what happened in Grubler v Grubler, which was recently decided.

In Grubler, the parties were married in 1984.  The marriage produced three children. The matter was settled in 1997 and the parties were granted joint custody of the children however, the husband was granted physical custody of the three children with the mother having to pay child support.  The agreement was silent with respect to financing the college education for the three children.  Unexplainably, the wife stopped paying child support and the father brought a petition in the Family Court for child support. Interestingly, and to the wife’s benefit, the husband did not bring an action for college tuition.  The Family Court, on its own, granted the husband’s petition for child support and then ordered the wife to pay twenty-nine percent (29%) if the children’s college education.

Unlike the obligation to provide support for a child’s basic needs, support of a child’s education is not mandatory.  Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240(11-b)(c)(7), a court may direct a parent to contribute to a child’s education, even in the absence of special circumstances or a voluntary agreement of the parties, as long as the Court’s discretion is not improvidently exercised.   In Grubler, the appellate court overturned the Family Court’s decision with respect to college tuition, holding that the husband didn’t petition the Court for tuition assistance thus it was an abuse of discretion to order the wife to pay for part of college.

When negotiating your settlement agreement, if you have children, college is something you should absolutely include in your agreement, even if you are not going to pay for it.   If you do not provide for it in your agreement, you are leaving yourself open to come back into court years later.  Generally speaking, Court’s like to provide for the children’s education, especially if both parents are college graduates.  However, you can limit your financial exposure in the agreement. Typically what you will see in an agreement is that the parties will agree to pay their pro-rata share of college up to the cost of attending the State University of New York (SUNY).  So, for example, if your child gets into Harvard, you are only responsible to pay your pro-rata share of what it would cost if you child were to attend a SUNY school.

How do you determine your pro-rata share?  That depends.  The first option is to base it on the parties income at the time the agreement is being drafted.  If your income is steady and you do not expect it to increase much in the future, that may be the best option.  If you think your spouse’s income may significantly increase in the future, you may want to provide that the pro-rata share is to be determined based on the tax returns for the year prior to your child entering into college.

If you do not provide for college in your agreement, your spouse may be able to drag you back into court years later to have you provide for it.  In the Grubler case, the wife was fortunate that the husband did not petition the court for college assistance as it seems clear that the Court was predisposed to granting college tuition assistance to the father.  If the parties do not intend to pay for college, a one or two line sentence in your agreement expressing this can save both parties the costs and uncertainty that comes with litigation. If you’re facing a similar situation make sure to call a Long Island divorce lawyer at Divins & Divins, P.C., for a free consultation to solve your potential problems.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Annulments in New York | Long Island Divorce Lawyer

Annulments are commonly sought when a marriage has lasted for a short period of time and there are no children of the marriage. With the passage of the “no fault” grounds for a divorce, annulments are less sought out.  However, if you do wish to pursue an annulment, here is what you need to know.

There are five grounds for an annulment of a marriage. (1) failure of a party to have reached the age of consent; (2) lack of understanding of our actions (generally seen when one party is mentally challenged in some fashion); physical incapacity to consummate the marriage; (4) consent to marry was obtained by force, duress or fraud; and (5) an incurable mental illness for five or more years. The important thing to remember here is that you need more than you and your spouse to agree to an annulment.  You will need corroborating evidence to bolster your case. In other words, you’ll need third party testimony to assisting you in your annulment action.

The Court of Appeals in Brillis v. Brillis, addressed an action for an annulment based on fraud.   In this case, the husband was an immigrant and his visa was about to expire and he had to leave the country.  He convinced his wife to marry him with promises of returning and remarrying within the Greek Orthodox Church, to which they were both members. He also promised to provide for her and live together as husband and wife.  The parties then married in a civil ceremony.  Upon the husband’s return, he did not follow through on his promises to get married in the church.    The Court held that when a person, in order to induce a marriage, makes a promise of a subsequent religious ceremony, without intending to keep it, an annulment will be granted where there was no cohabitation and consummation of the marriage.

Annulments are hard to obtain, especially where the marriage was consummated.  The previous example shows how it may be done however, as one would imagine, there will rarely be a scenario which fits the Brillis fact pattern.    If you are contemplating an annulment, call a Long Island Divorce Lawyer at Divins & Divins, P.C. to make an appointment to see us immediately.  With the no fault divorce statutes, and the stringent requirements for an annulment, you may not satisfy the grounds for an annulment and may be better off seeking a divorce through the new no fault grounds.

False Accusations Against a Spouse Can Lead to Losing Custody of Your Child

Often in divorce cases, the parties lose focus of the big picture and turn to a “win at all costs” strategy.  As any attorney will tell you, this seldom, if ever, works out the way you think it will.  This type of scorched earth policy tends to come out when fighting over custody of the children.  A prime example of how this tactic can back fire is found in the case of Carnike v Kasson.

In the Kasson matter, the parties had  one child.  The parties divorced and the Court awarded joint physical custody as it was clear both parents were loving responsible people.  The order directed the child moving from mother to father on a weekly basis. Right before the child, a little girl, was to start kindergarten, the wife made accusations that the father was sexually molesting the child, abusing alcohol and as a result of his job, rarely if ever home to take care of his daughter.   As a result, she petitioned the family court to have physical custody granted to her with the father only having supervised visitation.  Based on these accusations, father crossed moved for sole custody claiming that these accusations were only made to pull custody away from him and destroy any relationship he had with his daughter.

To warrant a modification of a pre-existing custodial arrangement, there must be sufficient evidence to support a change of circumstance reflecting a real need for a change in the order to continue the best interests of the child.  Courts have held that starting school is enough to warrant a change in circumstance requiring the establishment of a residence for the child.   Additionally, Courts have held that the lack any ability of the parties to communicate with each other concerning the needs of the child does not advance the best interests of the child and that it in itself is enough to establish a change in circumstances which may be enough for the Court to change the custodial arrangement.  Had the wife in this case stopped at that, simply saying that her daughter was beginning school and having her change her residence every Saturday evening was not in the best interest of the child, this case might have been decided differently.

At the hearing, the evidence showed that despite being seen by six different doctors there was no evidence of sexual abuse.  Additionally the court took note that there were no outstanding child protective service investigations nor any reports made by the mother to the police department.  The Court found that the mother in this instance was purposely attempting to interfere with the father’s parental rights.  Finally, despite the mother’s attempts to curtail visitation and custody, the father testified that he was willing to continue to promote the relationship between the mother and daughter.  As a result, the Court granted the father full physical custody of his daughter. Unexplainably, the Court declined to grant sanctions against the ex-wife for her accusations and actions.  This is the only part of the case that is surprising.  One can only assume that after losing physical custody of her daughter the Court deemed sanctions as unduly “piling on.”

False accusations and parental alienation is the fastest way for you to lose physical custody of your child.  Remember, divorce is hard enough for children to adapt to, the last thing they need is for you to ruin the relationship with your former spouse for no other reason that you are employing scorched earth tactic.  The best interests of your child is always to have a loving relationship with both parents.  It is imperative that you always foster such relationships and not interfere.  While you may no longer wish to speak to your ex-spouse, for the sake of the children, until they are emancipated, you must have at least a cordial relationship where you can discuss your child’s up bring.  It is to your peril if you are unable to keep such a relationship going. If you’re facing such problems, call a an experienced Long Island divorce attorney at Divins & Divins, P.C. for your free consultation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Grandparents Rights to Visitation | Long Island Divorce Lawyer

If you are a grandparent, what rights do you have to visit your grandchildren?  Can you get a Court to grant you visitation with your grandchildren if the parents forbid it?  The Court of Appeals for New York addressed this issue in its decision of In the Matter of E.S. v. P.D., in 2007.

In that case, husband and wife were married and had one child. Unfortunately, the wife was diagnosed with cancer.  When the diagnosis was made, wife’s mother moved in to help her daughter with daily errands and other things like cooking, cleaning and caring for the couple’s son. The wife passed away and the decision was made that the grandmother would stay in the house to help raise the child while husband worked.  For the next five years, the grandmother helped raise the child.  At some point, arguments between the father and grandmother began regarding the best way to raise the child.  As a result, the father asked the grandmother to leave and severely curtailed the visitation between the child and his grandmother.  As visitation became less and less frequent, grandmother petitioned the Court for visitation.  The father’s position was that the grandmother was not raising his son the way he deemed fit and was usurping his role as the father.

Domestic Relations Law §72(1) states that where either or both of the parents of a minor child, residing within this state, is or are deceased, or where circumstances show that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene, a grandparent may apply to the supreme or family court, and the court, by order after due notice to the parent or any other person or party having the care, custody, and control of such child, to be given  in such manner as the Court shall prescribe, may make such directions as the best interest of the child may require, for visitation rights for such grandparent in respect to that child.

When a Court is faced with a petition from a grandparent requesting visitation, it first must find that the grandparent has standing to come into court in the first place.  There is no automatic right for a grandparent to see their grandchild.  The Domestic Relations Law only provides a vehicle for a grandparent to seek visitation.  In order for a grandparent to have standing the Court must find one of two things exist.  First, if one of the two parents has passed away, then the grandparents have standing.  The other test is a more of a catch all which states that the grandparents have shown equitable circumstances which dictate that they should at least be heard as to why they should have access to their grandchild.

In this case, since a parent passed away, the grandmother had standing and was able to petition the Court for visitation.  Based on the facts in this case, specifically a five year relationship with the child where the grandmother was assisting in raising the child, the Court held that it was in the child’s best interests to continue this close relationship with the child.  Despite this ruling, the Court was mindful of the father’s wishes and right to raise his son in a manner which he deemed proper. However, in this case, the Court found that the fights and other allegations in which the father leveled against the grandmother were unsubstantiated.

In the circumstance where both parents are alive, the grandparents have a harder time establishing standing.  In order to have standing when both parents are alive, the grandparent would have to show that equity dictates that they be heard in Court.  What should a grandparent be able to show? Their best bet is to establish a long and close bond with the grandchild.  The fact that there is an acrimonious relationship between the parents and the grandparents are not enough to establish or deny visitation.  The key will be the relationship between the grandparent and the child before visitation is curtailed or denied.  Even if you are able to establish standing, grandparents normally have a high hurdle to overcome in forcing visitation.  The parental right to make decisions for their children and raise them in a manner they deem fit is paramount to raising children and will not be lightly disregarded.

Grandparent visitation is a complicated matter which should not be entered into lightly.  Your case will depend on the facts and circumstances of your particular case.  Assuming you have standing, preparing for the hearing is crucial.  If you cannot amicably settle this matter and must seek judicial intervention regarding grandparent visitation, seek our advice from one of our Divorce attorneys at the Long Island Divorce Law Firm of Divins & Divins, P.C., immediately so that we can begin preparing your case for the best possible outcome.

Enhanced by Zemanta