Don't miss my comments in red of all the violations of these laws that took place in my case.. beginning with Hearing Officer Bonnie Cohen Gallet, then by Judge Terrence McElrath, then it was Judge Barbara Panepinto (yes she had the gall to have this case in front of her wherein she refused to address child custody and refused to recuse herself during the first two hearings in front of her- yes she finally did recuse-see link - Disgusted with the system: Judge Barbara Irolla Panepinto Recused herself after two attempts by my attorney)) and then the final blow came from her colege, Judge Debra Silber an IDV (domestic violence) Judge, who refused me a divorce on cruel and inhuman treatment (gotta love it- she said I don't have grounds- without ever giving me a hearing on grounds)) what a racket!!.
The latest part of the apparent scandal taking place in the Uccio v Argenziano case was by Judge Debra Silber by her ignoring REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN my Writ of Habeas Corpus..
wherein I stated that my children are being held illegally by a self proclaimed domestic abuser ((see article 78 below right hand side of the blog for HIS OWN WORDS condemning him of domestic violence!))
Yet they allowed him to cross state lines.. file a false child protective case against me which would lead to my suing child services and the city for malicious prosecution and negligent misrepresentation)) and gave him custody..while refusing me any contact with my children..
can you believe this BS!
Anywho.. here are "the guidelines" apparently as long as your ex isn't politically connected .. these should work for you..
New York divorce attorney
The Gary and Eni Skoien case out in Chicago made me think of this topic for a post: what are the factors a court considers in awarding custody to a parent? I have probably done a ton of posts already that pretty much say the same thing, but what is a little repetition going to hurt?
So here goes. What you need to know about custody and the abc’s of how to win a custody battle in New York and around the country:
1) First of all, understand that the court is ultimately only concerned with what is in the “best interest of the child.” The parent who gets custody will be the parent who can best provide for the child’s “best interest.” What, you may ask, is the “best interest” of the child? How does the court determine that for purposes of custody? Well, the court considers a number of factors including but not limited to:
A. Physical ability and fitness of each parent.
B. Mental ability and fitness of each parent (Russo v. Russo 257 AD 2d 926) -
Yet the Richmond County courts - Gave my estranged husband custody and cut me out of my children's lives for eight years - without addressing my concerns of my estranged husbands apparent mental instability and apparent psychopath/narcissistic behavior!!
C. Child’s age -
my children were 6, 8, 12, and 15 at the time
D. Child’s physical and mental health (Cornelius C. v. Linda C 123 AD 2d 536)
Yet the Richmond County courts - Gave my estranged husband custody and cut me out of my children's lives for eight years - without addressing my concerns of my estranged husbands emotional abuse of the children via alienating them from me
E. Child’s special needs (Ocampa v. Jiminez 27 AD 3d 75)
F. Child’s preference (Eschbach v. Eschback 56 NY 2d 167)
H. Who has been the primary caretaker (Lenczycki v. Lencaycki 152 AD 2d 621)
Yet the Richmond County courts - Gave my estranged husband custody and cut me out of my children's lives for eight years - without addressing that I was the primary care taker for our entire marriage.
J. The sexual preference of each parent
K. Adultery and its impact upon children
L. Separation of siblings (Meyer v. Rudinger 285 AD 2d 714)
M. Locale of parents - stability of one home and/or relocation of parent (Kemp v. Kemp 19 AD 3d 748)
N. Spousal abuse (DRL sec. 240 (1)(a); Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner 270 AD 2d 417)
HA- A SELF PROCLAIMED ABUSER GETS THE KIDS IN MY CASE - GO FIGURE!
O. Child abuse -
Oh here's where his false allegations worked for him - then every hearing officer or judge that heard the case OMITTED the FALSE "indicated" child abuse case against me - so that I had NO opportunity to know about it or fight it - which led to a lawsuit against the City and Child Protective services.
P. Child’s refusal to be with one parent
Q. Parent’s work schedule (Ebel v. Urlich 273 AD 2d 530)
R. Children’s schedule
S. The need for supervised visitation
T. Ability of custodial parent to support the child (Matter of Louse E.S. v. W. Stephen S. 64 NY 2d 946)
U. The willingness of one Parent to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent (Darla N. v. Christine N 289 AD 2d 783)
Well this one is an obvious joke in my case they refuse to consider EIGHT YEARS OF ALIENATION a factor in changing custody! What a racket!!
V. Prior criminal conduct of a parent (Russo v. Russo 257 AD 2d 926)
Yeah ok.. not in my estranged husbands case... in addition to the fathers criminal record - they also ignored his fathers murdering his own brother as a concern!!
W. The presence of, and the children’s relationship with, a parent’s “significant other.” (Fairbanks V. Diehl 268 AD 2d 867)
X. Alchol or drug abuse of one parent (Melvina H. V. James Lee W 269 AD 2d 186)
Yep this was the LIE that the estranged husband got custody on - Imaging the courts REFUSED me drug testing - labeled me a dangerous drug addict then IGNORED a 100 % NEGATIVE HAIR DRUG TEST - again I'll say it till the day I die WHAT A FLIPPIN RACKET the family and Matrimonial Courts have going! WHAT A DISGRACE TO JUSTICE!
Source: State of New York Appellate Division, Supreme Court 2nd Judicial Department, Continuing Legal Education Law Guardian Program, 2007
Refresh - Go to homepage
Last thought on this topic today -
It's so sad that I'm NOT the only person the above Judges screwed - there is another mother on Staten Island that also got railroaded by Judge Terrence McElrath and Judge Barbara Panepinto - same story - they [il]legally kidnapped her children from her as well and gave them to her estranged husband after she already had custody established they went ahead in a lower court and re-decided INITIAL custody changing the original outcome -
What a racket!