The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman

📢 Preparing for a Child Custody Battle in New York 🗽

Are you facing a child custody battle in New York? We understand how challenging and overwhelming it can be. That's why we've written a comprehensive blog post to guide you through the process. From understanding New York's child custody laws to gathering evidence, and working with a skilled family law attorney, we cover it all.

We also provide tips on effective communication with your co-parent and prioritizing your child's best interests. Whether you're seeking sole custody or joint custody, our blog post is packed with valuable insights to help you navigate the complexities of New York's child custody battle. Check it out here: https://ny-lawyer.com

Call Today For A FREE Consultation: (516) 524-5657

Happy Labor Day 2023 from The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman! 🌟 Today is a day to honor and celebrate the hard work and dedication of all workers. Your contributions are invaluable and deserve recognition. We hope you enjoy a well-deserved day of rest and relaxation. 💪🏼🎈👨‍⚖️👩‍💼✨

🎆🎉 The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman sends heartfelt Fourth of July greetings to all our esteemed clients, cherished friends, and wonderful families! As we take a moment to remember the significance of this day, let's also delight in the spirit of unity, freedom, and joy that it embodies.

Remember to stay safe as you join in the celebrations. Relish the excitement, savor the food, enjoy the fireworks, and make unforgettable memories with your loved ones.

On this historic day, we all stand together as proud Americans, celebrating the journey and growth of our remarkable nation. Let's honor our country's past, appreciate its present, and look forward to a bright future.

🇺🇸

Wishing every dad a Happy Father's Day from The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman!

Your determination shapes the future. Like you, we strive for justice and truth daily. Keep inspiring us, fathers!

Home of the free, because of the brave. On , we honor and remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Happy Mother's Day to all the wonderful moms who make the world a better place. You deserve all the love and appreciation today and always!

- The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman

Contact Super Lawyer Steven Gildin for a free consultation regarding Divorce, Child Custody or a Child Support case.

Call The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman directly on their cell phone at: (516) 524-5657.

The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman -
Speak with Steven directly on his cell phone: (516) 524-5657

Are you dealing with a stressful divorce? The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman have been serving NY State for over 25 years. Call Steven TODAY on his cell phone: (516) 524-5657.

"Compassion for the Client and Aggression for the Adversary"
Serving All Of New York State

Are you in need of a top Family Lawyer to guide you through a child custody or child support case? With over 25 years' experience, Attorney Steven Gildin has handled a large volume of intricate cases. He is trusted, accessible and results driven!

"Compassion for the Client and Aggression for the Adversary"

Serving New York State

Justice Is Served!

Are you in search of a Child Support Attorney? Steven Gildin, has over 25 years of experience and handles Family Law cases throughout the state of New York. Call Attorney Steven Gildin today on his cell phone! (516) 524-5657.

"Compassion for the client and aggression for the adversary."

WHEN CAN A PARENT LOSE THEIR CHILD FOR NEGLECT

An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health.

In making its determination, the court must weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. The court must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child's best interests.

Evidence that the children who are the subject of the proceeding were previously harmed while in the parent's care is not required where it is shown that the parent demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment with respect to one child so as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in that parent's care.

The child services agency bears the burden of establishing that the subject child would be at imminent risk and therefore should remain in its custody.

Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii) provides that a prima facie case of child abuse or neglect may be established by evidence of (1) an injury to a child which would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of respondents, and (2) that respondents were the caretakers of the child at the time the injury occurred.

Family Court Act § 1046(a)(ii) authorizes a method of proof which is closely analogous to the negligence rule of res ipsa loquitur.

Once the petitioner establishes a prima facie case of abuse, the burden of going forward shifts to respondents to rebut the evidence of ... culpability, although the burden of proof always remains with the petitioner.

Here, the Family Court's determination to grant the parents' application for the return of Chase and Kaiden lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record.

The petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse against the parents by presenting evidence that injuries Ezara sustained would not ordinarily occur absent an act or omission of the caregiver, and that the parents were the caregivers of Ezara during the relevant time period.

Specifically, the petitioner's expert in child abuse pediatrics testified that the then two-month-old Ezara had multiple rib fractures, which appeared to have been sustained at different times, as well as fractures in his legs and a laceration of his spleen, and further testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma.

READ FULL ARTICLE: https://tinyurl.com/yehu5skd



The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman
Speak with Steven Live! (516) 524-5657

YOU MUST BE KIDDING -
- I CAN’T MOVE WITH MY CHILDREN A MERE 12.5 MILES?

A parent seeking leave to relocate with a child bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child's best interests. In determining whether a proposed move is in a child's best interests, the Court of Appeals held in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea (87 N.Y.2d 727, 740) that, “in all cases, the courts should be free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination.”

These factors include, but are not limited to, “each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements”.

In assessing these factors, “no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome”. However, “the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern”. “The trial court's credibility determinations are entitled to considerable deference on appeal”.
No agreement of the parties can bind the court to a disposition other than that which a weighing of all the factors involved shows to be in the child's best interest. Thus, the parties' agreement is not dispositive, but rather, is a factor to be considered along with all of the other factors a hearing court should consider when determining whether the relocation is in the best interests of the children.

While not dispositive, we agree with the Supreme Court's consideration of the relocation provision in paragraph 122(iii) of the parties' agreement and determination that the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden to move out of Scarsdale under that provision. Moreover, the plaintiff acknowledged that she did not attempt to avail herself of the less drastic option to move to the other side of Scarsdale in order to remove herself from the alleged intolerable conditions she was experiencing. Indeed, the record evidence did not support her contention that such a move would not alleviate the alleged intolerable conditions.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court's determination that relocation was not in the best interests of the children had a sound and substantial basis in the record. While the proposed move is only approximately 12.5 miles away from the former marital residence, the distance of the move is only one factor to consider. Here, the evidence established the proposed move would significantly hamper the defendant's ability to participate in the children's activities and would therefore negatively impact the quantity and quality of the children's future contact with the defendant. Specifically, as part of the defendant's religious practice of modern Orthodox Judaism, he does not generally travel by motor vehicle on the Sabbath or on certain religious holidays. However, because much of the children's extracurricular activities that occur on the Sabbath take place in Scarsdale, he is able to attend and get the children to those activities by walking, biking, or scooter.

The defendant attends the children's activities both during the plaintiff's time with them, as well as during his time with them. Under these circumstances, moving the children from Scarsdale will negatively impact their access time and relationship with the defendant in that he will be unable to attend those activities that occur during the plaintiff's time with the children and he will be unable to get the children to those activities that occur when the children are with him. Read entire article: https://tinyurl.com/y6tmyr5s

The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman
Speak with Attorney Steven Gildin directly at: (516) 524-5657

CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT ALWAYS SET ON THE INCOME THAT A PARENT REPORTS ON THEIR TAXES

The level of child support is determined by the parents' ability to provide for their children rather than their current economic situation. A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings. The court may impute income to a party based on their employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends & relatives.

The Support Magistrate's determination to impute to the father his 2017 adjusted gross income, rather than rely on his 2018 adjusted gross income as reported, and the monthly contributions made to the father by his friend was based on credibility determinations and supported by the record, & thus should not be disturbed.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:

https://ny-lawyer.com/child-spousal-support/

CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT ALWAYS SET ON THE INCOME THAT A PARENT REPORTS ON THEIR TAXES

The level of child support is determined by the parents' ability to provide for their children rather than their current economic situation. A court need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances but may impute income based upon the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings. The court may impute income to a party based on their employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends & relatives.

The Support Magistrate's determination to impute to the father his 2017 adjusted gross income, rather than rely on his 2018 adjusted gross income as reported, and the monthly contributions made to the father by his friend was based on credibility determinations and supported by the record, & thus should not be disturbed.

Furthermore, the Support Magistrate's determination that the sum of $419 per week under the Child Support Standard Act (Family Ct Act § 413; hereinafter CSSA) guidelines was unjust and inappropriate in light of the needs of the household, the father's $350,000 personal injury settlement, the mother's debts and previous financial struggles, & the enhanced standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the household remained intact, was supported by the record and an adequate statement of the reasoning for deviating from the CSSA guidelines.

Evans v. Evans, – NYS3d – 2020 WL 5807334 (2nd Dep’t. 2020)

THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDIN & CHAPMAN - (516) 524-5657

WWW.NY-LAWYER.COM

Queens, NY | Garden City, NY | Divorce Lawyer | Family Lawyer | Child Support Lawyer Steven has had a particular emphasis is on Family Law, Divorce Law, Child Custody and Child Support matters. We are located in Queens, Manhattan and Long Island, NY.

CUSTODY CASES – ONE PARENT ALIENATING THE CHILD FROM OTHER PARENT

Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth the terms of custody or parental access is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child.

The paramount concern when making such a determination is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances. Inasmuch as custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the hearing court’s findings in this regard and the court’s findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Here, the mother’s admitted violations of the stipulation of settlement in failing to comply with the provisions concerning the father’s parental access established a sufficient change in circumstances to permit the father to seek sole custody under the terms of the stipulation. However, the father failed to establish that such a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child.

Click here to read entire article - https://tinyurl.com/3kpkka9a

custody law support The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman

The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman would like to wish our family, friends and clients a healthy, safe and prosperous 2023 🎉🎊!

To all of our clients, thank you! We appreciate the opportunity to service all of your legal needs.

Best,

Steven Gildin
Brent Chapman
The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman

COURT ORDERED 11-YEAR-OLD TO BE VACCINATED WHEN PARENTS DISAGREED

In this case, the 11-year-old child is eligible for the vaccine. She wants to participate in the same vaccine as her older sister and her mother. There is no dispute that the father is full vaccinated. The dangers posed by the unvaccinated child are easily forecast. Not only would the child be more likely to contract the disease but there is a reasonable prospect that the severity of the disease encountered by the child may be enhanced without vaccination. If she has mild COVID symptoms, the incapacity may only last a few days with normal flu-like symptoms. If the illness is more severe, then an extended stay at home, away from school, may result, much less a visit to the hospital. Loss of sense -- especially taste and smell -- are well-established complications of any form of COVID and may persist beyond recovery from the flu-like symptoms of the disease. If the child is unvaccinated, she runs a greater risk of exposure during her time at school, when large numbers of students, with varying levels of vaccination, will be mulling around within her orbit. If the child catches the virus, she runs the risk of spreading it to either the father or the mother's household, even if all of its members are vaccinated. She also runs the risk of spreading it to others outside the immediate family, including relatives and family friends.

The father's objections can be summed up simply: wait and see what further research demonstrates on both the efficacy of the vaccine and the impact of both short and long-term side effects. But, this Court is unwilling to kick this can down the road. It could be years before any researchers have exacting accounts of either the short- or long-term consequences of the administration of this vaccine on 11-year-old girls with this child's physiological makeup. The notion of waiting only amplify the risks to this girl. The Court can take judicial notice that Monroe County, this week, declared a state of emergency, as hospitals were filling with ill COVID patients. The County Department of Public Health said that there were 2,643 new cases reported since last Monday, November 22. The seven-day rolling average of new cases in the County in which the child lives is 378 new cases per day, the 2nd highest rate of any region in the New York State.

Waiting -- to be “sure,” as the father asks -- is simply untenable, when the specter of a killing or incapacitating disease is swirling in the environment surrounding this young girl. The wait, requested by the father, could extend beyond the term of the virus, as scientists may never catch up to this ever evolving and elusive virus and variants. The scientific certainty that the father seeks about complications from the vaccine as a condition to agreeing to permit administration of the vaccine is not the horizon. This Court, weighing the child's best interests, cannot wait for the vaccine's side effects or efficacy to be scientifically established beyond a reasonable doubt or even to the father's satisfaction. The imminent risk of contracting the disease is too high and the consequences of acquiring it potentially too dire.

The paramount concern when making any parental determination in which the Court substitutes its judgment for that of either parent, is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances. The best interests of this child are served by participating in the vaccine program. The mother wants the child vaccinated: the child agrees. So does her counsel. The father, already vaccinated, acknowledges that vaccines are important, even though he questions potential complications and side effects in its application to his youngest daughter. The child's pediatrician, selected by both parents, endorses an immediate vaccination. So does this Court.

J.F. v. D.F., Defendant., 2021 WL 5779901 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 3, 2021)

Being involved with any legal matter is beyond difficult.
Reaching a highly skilled lawyer should be easy.

The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman have compassion for the client and aggression for the adversary.

Contact us today! (516) 524-5657

The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman would like to wish our family, friends and clients a healthy, safe and happy holiday season.

To all of our clients, thank you! We appreciate the opportunity to service all of your legal needs.

Best,

Steven Gildin
Brent Chapman

Gildin and Chapman is a boutique style law firm emphasizing all aspects of Family Law, Criminal Defense and Appeals.

Both Steven Gildin and Brent Chapman have nearly three decades of legal experience successfully handling literally many thousands of cases from the very first call, throughout all litigation and trial and beyond. With this broad knowledge, efficiency and effectiveness are maximized for the client.

As the only New York Statewide law firm in Family Law and Criminal Defense, Gildin and Chapman offer a team of lawyers to provide precise localized attention for every client facing the perils of their own legal crisis.

Gildin and Chapman are extremely accessible to their clients. They can be personally reached on their own cell phones every single day and night, since a client’s legal crisis cannot be fit into a simple 9 to 5 box.

Gildin and Chapman -
- Compassion for the Client, Aggression for the Adversary

May your Thanksgiving be full of peace, love and joy!

Enjoy,

Steven Gildin
Brent Chapman

NO VISITS IF PARENT IS NOT VACCINATED

The Court restricted the non-vaccinated parent's access to the child until they were vaccinated or underwent regular testing.
New York is transitioning towards a “new normal” where citizens are taking precautions to balance staying safe from COVID-19 and its variants alongside the desire to return to some semblance of regular life. The widespread availability of three different no-cost COVID-19 vaccines, with their continued, proven efficacy in preventing the spread of the virus and the development of serious symptoms in those who contract it, has resulted in the expectation that one must be vaccinated in order to participate meaningfully in everyday society.
C.B. v. D.B., 2021 NY Misc Lexis 5111 (Sup. Ct. New York City 2021)

CALL TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION!
(516) 524-5657
www.ny-lawyer.com

Getting a divorce can be difficult, yet, finding a quality lawyer should be easy!

A JUDGE HAS NO POWER TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES TO FILE A NEGLECT CASE

To the extent that [prior precedent] decisions implicitly hold that Family Court may order a child protective agency to commence a proceeding under Family Ct Act article 10, they should no longer be followed for such proposition. Accordingly, in the absence of any express grant of authority by statute, Family Court erred in sua sponte directing DSS to commence a neglect proceeding against the father and the mother.

Donald QQ. v. Stephanie RR., – NYS3d – , 2021 WL 4897212 (3rd Dep’t. 2021)

The Law Offices of Gildin & Chapman
New York State Attorneys
(516) 524-5657

JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY ORDERED BY THE COURT

An award of joint legal custody is an aspirational goal in every custody matter and is particularly warranted where the parties are generally able to communicate with one another in a cooperative fashion. (Read Entire Article) https://tinyurl.com/3bu7zyfm

The Law Offices of Steven Gildin
(516) 526-5657

WHEN YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF A DIVORCE AGREEMENT, A NEW, SEPARATE CASE MUST BE FILED

A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce may be reformed only in a plenary action. Family Court does not have jurisdiction to modify a separation agreement.

Deborah K. v. Richard K., 2022 WL 618996 (1st Department. 2022)

THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DILDIN
CALL STEVE TODAY ON HIS CELL PHONE – (516) 524-5657

WHAT HAPPENS TO EXISTING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT OBLIGATION IF ONE OF THE CHILDREN TURNS 21?

The parties, who have three children together, were divorced by a judgment of divorce dated June 20, 2017. The judgment incorporated, but did not merge, a so-ordered stipulation of custody and access dated December 8, 2016, and a stipulation between the parties resolving issues of, inter alia, maintenance and child support that was placed on the record on December 14, 2016. The so-ordered stipulation of custody and access provided that the parties would have joint legal custody of the children with the mother having primary residential custody. Pursuant to the judgment, the father was directed to pay maintenance in the amount of $2,000 per month commencing December 1, 2016, until December 1, 2020, and child support in the amount of $3,250 per month, until the cessation of the father’s maintenance obligation, at which time the father’s child support obligation would increase to $4,157 monthly.

On November 4, 2020... (Click link to read entire article) https://tinyurl.com/gildin

DIVORCE IS HARD. FINDING A QUALITY LAWYER SHOULD BE EASY!

CONTACT Law Offices of Steven Gildin FOR A FREE CONSULTATION.

CALL STEVEN ON HIS CELL PHONE (516) 524-5657

AS FEATURED ON: The New York Times CNN Fox News