Sunday, March 22, 2009

Family and Matrimonial Law and Parent Alienation

Parental alienation is a big and important area of child custody cases. While many non-custodial many believe that parental alienation is occuring the question is what can be done about. Under the New York Domestic Relations Law, parental alienation can result in the reduction of child support, but more importantly it can result in the change of custody.

The New York Appellate courts have come to realize that parental alienation is harmful to the child, and therefore could warrant a change of custody. The First Department, in Osbourne v. Regina S., 55 AD3d 465 found that “the mother’s negative attitude and hostility toward the father, as evidenced by her maligning of the father in the child’s presence, the filing of unsubstantiated reports of abuse and neglect against him, and encouraging the child to lie to support her false claims, failed to demonstrate a willingness or ability on her part to facilitate and encourage a close and optimum relationship between the child and his father.” As a result the court changed custody from the mother to the father.

The key to the decision is the understanding that parental alienation is not in the best interests of the child. In the case of Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793, the Second Department specifically stated that parental alienation is not in the child’s best interests. The court agreed with the Family Court that the mother should lose custody. The court found that the “mother deliberately interfered with the father’s visitation rights, and moreover, denigrated the father in the child’s presence. This conduct is so inconsistent with the child’s best interests that it per se raises a strong probability that the mother is unfit to act as a custodial parent.”

In fact, the courts are so concerned with parental alienation that not only may a custodial parent lose custody, but may also lose unsupervised visitation. In Stewart v. Stewart, 56 AD3d 1218, the court found that as a result of the parental alienation, that supervised visitation was in the child’s best interest.

The point for the custodial parent is to avoid at all costs saying anything that is derogatory about the non-custodial parent to the children. The point for the non-custodial parent is that you can fight back against parental alienation.

New York Divorce Lawyers Explain Family and Matrimonial Law » Parental Alienation

My Two Cents..

Ok I live in NY where this attorney is quoting law from. Is it possible that these laws got ignored over and over in my case? YES THEY DID!

Could the answer to how the heck they got ignored lay in the Political connections my estranged husband Mr. Louis M. Argenziano has to the Panepinto's (Jospeh Panepinto Director of CYO ((estranged husbands boss)) Richmond County sitting Supree Court Judge Barbara Panepinto ((Estranged husband's Bosses wife)) and Aggie Panepinto ((estranged husbands live in lover- who is now raising my children without any influence from me - COURT ORDERED for the last eight years WITHOUT ONE OUNCE OF PROOF OF ANY ABUSE NEGLECT OT UNFITNESS ON MY PART!!


You decide.. connect all the dots and the picture is VERY UGLY and REEKS OF CORRUPTION in the Staten Island Family and Matrimonial Courts!

Refresh - Go to homepage


Telugu Movies Review said...

Nice blog

Sherelle said...

On Friday July 13, 2012 my daughter, Kailey Anne-Marie Martin was ripped away from me after the Centralia, WA police department kicked in my door on a Writ of Habeas Corpus and an Aid of Writ of Habeas Corpus for a default judgment in 2010 that I was NEVER served with, this is wrong! California Superior Court Rule 5.124(b) Request for Default states:“For the purpose of computing the declaration of mailing, unless was by publication and the address of the respondent is unknown, it is not sufficient to state that the address of the party to whom notice is given is unknown or unavailable.”Commissioner Tracey Mitchell of the Lewis County Superior Court issued this bogus Writ of Habeas Corpus. When I had informed Commissioner Mitchell that I was never properly served she merely shrugged her shoulders. I also informed Commissioner Mitchell that both Kailey and I are registered Native Americans and that I had rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act, Commissioner Mitchell responded with, “I don’t recognize Native American laws in my court. AGAIN this is wrong!The alleged father states in a declaration that I was served with in May of 2012:“On or about 2/26/2010, after saving up more money, I went back to court and was unable to get Ms. Martin served due to her whereabouts being unknown.”This statement was entered as evidence to the San Diego Superior Court and yet the alleged father was STILL granted a default judgment awarding him 100% sole custody of my daughter, Kailey, even though he stated for the record that he NEVER had me served. Ever since I was served in May 2012 I have filed all the appropriate responses/ answers, made requests for telephone appearances due to indigence, and requested counsel all of which were denied by the San Diego Superior Court.The “Bring Kailey Home” Foundation has been established to reunite a mother with her daughter who was UNJUSTLY taken from her. My right to due process was completely denied! Please show your support by liking us on Facebook, Bring Kailey Home, or I can be personally contacted via call/text at 541-272-7592Edit