Recent Blog Posts

Can Movies Help Children Going Through A Divorce?

Long Island Divorce Attorney — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:05:00 GMT

Perhaps one of the most heartbreaking aspects of a divorce is that of child custody. Children often do not fully understand the situation and it can be difficult to explain it to them. Not only that, but parents have the difficult decision of how to divide custody. According to a family therapist at the Children's Hospital of Orange County, movies can be a helpful tool in opening dialogue between the children and their parents. Movies such as ET: The Extraterrestrial and Mrs. Doubtfire portray families trying to adjust to a new lifestyle. By watching these movies with your children, you could talk openly and honestly with your children.

If you are going through a divorce and facing child custody and child visitation issues, a Long Island divorce attorney could be of invaluable service to you. The Law Offices of Jay D. Raxenberg will do our utmost to protect your rights while trying to come to a successful resolution. Contact a Long Island divorce lawyer from our firm for more information.

Shocking Divorce Statistics Discovered By National Center For Family And Marriage

Long Island Divorce Attorney — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:07:00 GMT

According to a new study released by the National Center for Family and Marriage Research, U.S. women with the least education have the lowest rate of first divorce. Furthermore, U.S. women with the most education also have the lowest rate of first divorce. The researchers at Bowling Green State University used date taken from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau and found that 17.5 per 1,000 women eighteen and older had a first divorce. The number was only 14.4 per 1,000 among women who had no high school diploma or GED. The number was 14.2 per 1,000 among women who had a college degree. The highest rate of divorced women (23 per 1,000) were those who received some education after high school, but did not receive a college degree.

If you are considering filing for divorce or want to speak to a Long Island divorce attorney about your options, please do not hesitate to contact the Law Offices of Jay D. Raxenberg. We have the experience and legal skill necessary to protect your best interests. Contact a Long Island divorce attorney from our team today!

Discrediting Parenting Skills

Jay Raxenberg — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:20:00 GMT

Despite popular belief, discrediting the parenting skills of an estranged spouse does not necessarily prove that the complaining party is the more fit parent in regards to receiving sole custody of a child. Take, for example, the case of Angela Voelkert. Ms. Voelkert recently made headlines when she elicited incriminating statements from her husband regarding herself and their children by way of a fake Facebook profile. Upon accepting the friend request of one "Jessica Studebaker", a scantily clad 17 year old that supposedly went to high school with his daughter, Angela's husband, David, opened up about his deteriorating marriage and his ongoing custody battle. David disclosed information such as having put a GPS device in Angela's car so that it would be easier for somebody to "take care of her". He even went as far as to ask Jessica if she knew any "gangbangers" who would put a cap in [Angela] for $10,000.00". Armed with this documented assault on David's character, Angela had no doubt that she would be able to easily convince a Court to grant her sole custody of the parties' daughter. Unfortunately for Angela, however, David was suspicious of her scheming ways. Instead of exposing his wife as a fake, David indulged her and used the opportunity to prove that she was in fact the ill-fit parent, memorializing his plan in a notarized affidavit prior to engaging in relations with "Jessica". The affidavit supported his contention that he suspected "Jessica" was his wife by stating "I am lying to this person to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life." He added, "In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else."

David's scheme, although genius, was unnecessary in terms of being granted custody of the parties' daughter. Courts determine custody by focusing on the best interests of the child in question, and the fact that one parent lacks proper parenting skills does not necessarily mean that the other parent will be granted sole or even joint custody. For example, in the May 27, 2011 case of M.R. v. A.D., the Supreme Court of New York County decided that neither party was capable of meeting the needs of J., "a sweet, rambunctious and energetic little boy with significant learning deficits", on their own, or in conjunction with the other party. After a ten day custody trial, the Court determined that while the mother was nurturing, she was unable to provide firm and consistent boundaries on J's behavior. Contrastingly, J's father set firm standards on J's behavior but was not warm or affectionate. Based on the finding that J needed both structure and nurture, the court opined that "neither of these parents is a better parent than the other to the degree that either of them should be privileged over the other as the custodial parent." The Court also decided that joint custody would not be in J's best interest, relying on Braiman v Braiman, which holds that joint custody is not appropriate where the parties are hostile and cannot communicate, as was the case with J's parents. In an unusual decision, the Court assessed each party's parenting strengths and determined "spheres in which each party will be the final decision maker." For instance, the mother was granted decision making over extra-curricular activities and religion and the father would determine matters related to J's health and education. Although uncommon, M.R. v. A.D. provides proof that Courts are more concerned with the best interests of the child than with how much dirt one party has on the other. Furthermore, as M.R. v. A.D.'s unique resolution proves, the Court has the authority to modify a parenting schedule in the fashion believed to be most suitable for the child's needs.

If you are a parent considering divorce and are concerned about your child's best interests throughout the process, Jay D. Raxenberg can help.

Marriage Equality Legislation May Protect Your Equal Rights, But Does It Protect Your Assets?

Jay Raxenberg — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:40:00 GMT

On July 24^th, 2011, the first day that New York's same-sex marriage law goes into effect, each of the City Clerk's five borough offices will conduct a public lottery, allowing a total of 764 same-sex couples to wed on this historic day. The necessity of the lottery is due to the high demand for services that the State has seen since the new marriage law passed through the State senate. The race for same-sex couples to tie the knot, however, will have ramifications that extend beyond an increase in flower sales and wedding venue profits. Although the approval of the marriage equality legislation is an occasion to celebrate, it remains true that same-sex relationships are no less susceptible to divorce than heterosexual marriages. According to a 2008 report from the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles, the annual rate of same-sex marriage divorces was nearly identical to the opposite-sex divorce rate. The good news, however, is that the passing of New York's new marriage law will make it exponentially easier for same-sex couples to obtain a divorce in New York than it previously had been. Although New York has recognized same-sex divorce since 2008, when an appeals court found that a same-sex marriage performed in Canada could be legally recognized in New York for the purposes of dissolving the union, it has since been applied on a case-by-case basis. The newly passed marriage equality legislation, however, makes it so that same-sex divorce, along with opposite sex divorce, will be governed by New York's Domestic Relations Law. Since same-sex divorce will no longer be governed by court rulings and judge's opinions, same-sex couples will now be able to benefit from the same consistency in divorce proceedings as their heterosexual counterparts. However, with same-sex divorce now rooted in statute, same-sex couples will be subjected to the same equitable distribution laws as opposite-sex divorce proceedings. The battle for marriage equality in New York has spanned over decades, and in that time, while waiting to be able to legally marry, many same-sex couples have accumulated a great deal of wealth, which may prove to be a hindering factor to a smooth divorce proceeding in the future. Many heterosexual couples have avoided such potential problems by entering into a well-drafted pre-nuptial agreement prior to marriage, thereby mutually agreeing on how their property will be split in the case of divorce. Same-sex couples can now also use a pre-nuptial agreement as a tool to help make a potential future divorce more amicable.

If you are a same-sex couple considering marriage and are interested in protecting your assets with a pre-nuptial agreement, please contact a Long Island Divorce Lawyer at the Law Offices of Jay D. Raxenberg, P.C.

How the Letters After Your Name Affect Your Divorce: Enhanced Earning Capacity in New York

Jay Raxenberg — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:21:00 GMT

A J.D., M.B.A, M.D., Ph.D, C.P.A, or L.L.M degree look great on your resume. But, are they good for your divorce?

In New York, licenses obtained during the marriage are subject to equitable distribution during a divorce. In the seminal case of O'Brien v. O'Brien, where the court of appeals held that the plaintiff's license to practice medicine was subject to equitable distribution, the court of appeals explained, "A professional license is a valuable property right, reflected in the money, effort and lost opportunity for employment expended in its acquisition, and also in the enhanced earning capacity it affords its holder, which may not be revoked without due process of law."

Enhanced earnings are the additional income that is potentially available to a spouse as a result of his or her having acquired a degree or license during the course of the marriage. Valuating an enhanced earning will generally require the retention of forensic evaluator. Generally, the forensic expert will determine the difference between the earnings made possible by the license and the earnings that the licensed spouse would have expected without the license.

According to Domestic Relations Law §236, for a spouse to receive an award on account of enhanced earnings it must be shown that he or she made a contribution to the licensed or degreed spouse or to the acquisition of the license or degree, which contribution makes it equitable for an award to be made.

If you are interested in obtaining a divorce, Long Island divorce attorney Jay D. Raxenberg can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

Hot Off the Press: New Legislation in New York for Maintenance, Counsel Fees and Child Support

Jay Raxenberg — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:43:00 GMT

On October 12, 2010, New York's no fault divorce law became effective. In addition to the "fault grounds" (i.e. adultery, abandonment, constructive abandonment or cruel and inhumane treatment) couples can now be divorce based on "irreconcilable differences for at least six months." Additionally, there are three other important divorce law changes now in place.

First, there are new guidelines for awarding temporary maintenance in an effort to create predictability and consistency. The law states, "The temporary maintenance guidelines would only result in an award when there is an income gap between the two parties such that the less-monied spouse's income is less than two thirds of the more monied spouse's income. " The actual amount of temporary maintenance awarded will be calculated by determining the lesser of a) 30% of the payor's income minus 20% of the non-payor's income or b) 40% of the combined income minus the non payor's income.

Post-divorce maintenance determinations remain the same, taking into account various factors including the length of marriage, the health of the parties, the lifestyle the parties have become accustomed to, and the spouse's current or prospective employment.

Second, a counsel fee bill provides for a rebuttable presumption that the monied spouse shall pay interim attorney's fees to the non-monied spouse. It also authorizes the court to order expert fees to be paid by one party to the other to enable the party to carry on or defend the action.

Finally, the Family Court Act, Social Services Law, and Domestic Relations Law was amended with regards to child support. The Family Court Act and Domestic Relations law now reflect that child support may be modified upon a showing of "substantial change in circumstances." However, incarceration will not be considered a substantial change in circumstance. Additionally, under this new legislation the court may modify child support if: a) 3 years have passed since the order was entered, last modified, or adjusted; or b) there has been a change in either party's gross income by 15% or more since the order was last entered, modified, or adjusted. If the reduction of income was involuntary and the party has made diligent attempts to secure employment, this reduction will not be considered a ground for modification.

If you are looking to obtain a divorce or would like to reduce your child support obligations, LONG ISLAND DIVORCE ATTORNEY JAY D. RAXENBERG can help. Click here for a complimentary consultation

Constructive Emancipation in New York Families

Jay Raxenberg — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:03:00 GMT

We've heard the stories of celebrity children emancipating from their parents in order to take control of the money they are making: Actress, Drew Barrymore; Olympic gymnast, Dominque Moceanu; and Actor, MacCaulay Culkin, to name a few. But, what about us regular folks? Can the average child emancipate himself or herself from the control of his or her parents?

The New York Family Court Act, section 413, states that "Under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a parent's obligation to support a child until he or she reaches age 21 may be suspended where the child, although not financially self sufficient, abandons that parent's home without sufficient cause and withdraws from the parent's control, refusing to comply with reasonable parental demands."

The doctrine of constructive emancipation is applicable to an intact household or a divorced household where the non-custodial parent is paying child support.

In the former situation, in the case of Roe v. Doe, the child withdrew from parental control by actually moving out of the parent's home and moving in with a classmate. The New York Court of Appeals held that where a child "voluntarily abandons the parent's home for the purpose of seeking its fortune in the world or to avoid parental discipline and restraint [the child] forfeits the claim to support . . . To hold otherwise would allow, at least in the case before us, a minor of employable age to deliberately flout the legitimate mandates of her father while requiring that the latter support her in her decision to place herself beyond his effective control."

In regards to child support obligations between a child and the non-residential parent, the child must refuse to have contact with the non-custodial parent and the parent must try to establish communication for a period of time. Assuming the parent was not at fault for the breakdown in the relationship, the parent can move to terminate child support payments.

In Commissioner of Social Services v. Jones-Gamble, the court opined, "The doctrine of constructive emancipation is also applicable to the noncustodial parent where the child unreasonably refuses all contact and visitation... The evidence adduced in this case clearly establishes that [the child] wants no relationship with her father. Indeed, she has told many people that her father died in the war. Despite his prior support payments there is essentially no parent-child relationship between them. To require the father to provide reimbursement for the support of a daughter who has renounced and abandoned him would clearly result in an injustice under the facts of this case."

If you are looking to constructively emancipate your child, the Law Offices of JAY D. RAXENBERG can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

Parental Alienation on Planet Earth: How Courts are Protecting the Alienated Parent

Jay Raxenberg — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:45:00 GMT

Have you, as the non-custodial parent, ever felt like your spouse is alienating you from your children? That your child no longer wants to visit with you for no apparent reason? Or that your child has been uttering words or phrases that are not age appropriate regarding why they do not want to visit with you or why you are to blame for breaking up the marriage? If so, you may be a victim of parental alienation.

Parental alienation syndrome, a term developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, is a disturbance in which "children are not merely systematically and consciously 'brainwashed' but are also subconsciously and unconsciously 'programmed' by one parent against the other. (See J.F. v. L.F 181 Misc. 2d 722). Parental alienation will most commonly occur after a divorce or separation when one parent wants full custody or less visitation rights for their ex-spouse.

In May 2010, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge Ross sentenced a mother to incarceration for six alternating weekends for violating the couples' separation agreement by "alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant," and "hinder[ing], impair[ing] or prevent[ing] the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so." (Lauren R. v Ted R., 2010 NY Slip Op 50931U).

By way of example for what constitutes parental alienation, in this case Judge Ross found that the following acts rose to the level of alienation. The mother scheduled the child's birthday party on father's visitation weekend and refused to allow the father to attend the party. When the mother insisted the children come home early from their father's house for the birthday party and the children wanted to stay until the party, the mother warned the children that they would be punished "big time" for wanting to spend time with their father. On numerous occasions the mother scheduled family events and social activities for the children during the father's visitation time. Finally, "The children demanded that defendant (father) meet "their" demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded...that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother's therapist, and that he pay for 75% of D.'s Bat Mitzvah but limit his invitations to a handful of guests and have no role in the planning of the event. Plaintiff's (mother) contention that she had no involvement in these children's "demands" was belied by the very fact that the children had intimate knowledge of their mother's position on all of these issues."

Whereas Judge Ross ordered the mother to jail for six weekends, other New York courts have ordered different remedies. In some cases, a showing of parental alienation led to a change of custody. If the parental alienator is the non-custodial parent, the court may suspend all visitation with the child. If the parental alienator is the custodial parent who is receiving maintenance, Domestic Relations Law § 241 allows the Judge to give the non-custodial parent financial relief. "When it appears to the satisfaction of the court that a custodial parent receiving alimony or maintenance pursuant to an order, judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction has wrongfully interfered with or withheld visitation rights provided by such order, judgment or decree, the court, in its discretion, may suspend such payments or cancel any arrears that may have accrued during the time that visitation rights have been or are being interfered with or withheld."

If you are experiencing parental alienation syndrome Long Island Divorce Attorney JAY D. RAXENBERG can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

Virtual Visitation: Judge Orders Skype Visits To Allow Mom To Move With Children

Jay Raxenberg — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:06:00 GMT

The ABA recently published an interesting article regarding a local Suffolk County matrimonial action. The case, Baker v. Baker, involved an ex-wife who was looking to relocate to Florida with the parties' two children to be closer to her family and find better employment. As noted in my July 27, 2010 blog post "What to Prove When You Want to Move," judges will allow relocation only when it is in the best interests of the children.

In the instant case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge, Jerry Garguilo, allowed the ex-wife to relocate to Florida under the condition that she make the children available to talk to their father via Skype. The conditions set on this "virtual visitation" include making the children available three times per week for not less than one hour. According to Judge Garguilo, "Common sense, logic and a realistic view of life on Long Island clearly indicate that the Petitioner and children cannot maintain a residence, heat, clothe themselves, provide for transportation and enjoy only the basic necessities on the monies that are currently available."

As technology evolves, it is clear that judges will adapt to these changes as seen above.

If you are looking to obtain a divorce, or are looking to relocate with your children, Long Island Divorce Attorney Jay D. Raxenberg can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

New York Passes No Fault Divorce Bill

Jay Raxenberg — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:01:00 GMT

On Sunday, August 15, 2010, Governor Paterson signed a bill making New York the last state to allow no fault divorce. This means that instead of accusing your spouse of committing adultery, constructive abandonment, or cruel and inhumane treatment, or, entering into a separation agreement for one year, one spouse must swear under oath that the relationship has "irretrievably" broken down for at least six months. Instead of pointing fingers and alleging blame, parties can dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.

To view the bill click here.

If you are looking to obtain a divorce Long Island Divorce Attorney, JAY D. RAXENBERG can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

Mind Your Own Business: How to Split Your Business in a New York Divorce

Jay Raxenberg — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:33:00 GMT

When you are married there are many assets you and your spouse accumulate that may need to be evaluated in order to equitably divide the property during divorce. Of interesting importance is the valuation of a business.

There are two scenarios where the business comes into play. First, you or your spouse may have owned (and continue to own) a business before marriage. In this case your spouse may be entitled to any appreciation of the business from the time of marriage until the time of divorce. Courts reason that your spouse contributed to the appreciation of the business through his or her support. The other scenario is if you and your spouse own a business together. In this case, it is obvious that your spouse would be entitled to a portion of the sale of the business when you divorce.

The parties to a divorce can choose to have the business evaluated at two different times: either from the date of the commencement of the action or the first trial date.

In today's economic upheaval, the date to which a business is valued can make a drastic difference in the amount of money you and your spouse receive. By way of example, Jack owned a business before he met Jill. In 2008, the date Jack filed for divorce, his business was worth $100,000. The parties tried to amicably resolve the matter. When negotiations went sour, Jack decided a judge must aid in dissolving the marriage. Two years later the parties are preparing for trial. Now, due to the poor economic conditions, Jack has not been getting as many clients as in 2008. The business is only worth $10,000.

It is clear from Jack and Jill's story that the date you select to evaluate a business is crucial.

If you are looking to obtain a divorce Long Island Divorce Attorney JAY D. RAXENBERG can help make sure your business is protected. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

What to Prove When You Want to Move

Jay Raxenberg — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:31:00 GMT

After a divorce it is not uncommon for the custodial parent to relocate to another city or state with the child. There are many reasons custodial parents move: to be closer to family, to obtain better employment, or to embark on a new life with a new partner. Courts are very reluctant to allow the custodial parent to move away with the child if the distance will impact the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent.

As noted in the seminal parental relocation case, Tropea v. Tropea, of greatest importance in determining whether to allow relocation is whether the move is in the best interests of the child. In considering this issue, the court will look at the following factors:

1. each parent's reasons for either seeking or opposing relocation;

2. the current state of the relationship between the child and each parent;

3. the impact that the relocation will have on the quality and quantity of the child's relationship with the non-custodial parent;

4. the emotional, economic and educational effects that the move will have on the child;

5. and the feasibility of maintaining the relationship between child and non-custodial parent through visitation

With regards to each sub factor, a New York Court in the Matter of Mr. G. v. Mrs. M. stated that, "seeking to set up a new family life with a new spouse is a justifiable reason for a custodial parent to seek relocation with the child as is seeking a better economic situation including a new job, provided that the custodial parent can show that the same benefit cannot be realized where he/she currently resides. Seeking to provide the child with an overall improved quality of life including more time available to spend with the child as well as the presence of extended family in the proposed destination of relocation is also a justifiable reason for a custodial parent to seek relocation."

However, "A non-custodial parent may oppose the relocation if he/she shows that the quality of the relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent is a warm and loving relationship." If the move will interfere with visitation and require a long car ride to the non-custodial parent's residence, the court will not find this to be in the best interests of the child.

If you are a custodial parent looking to relocate or if you are a non-custodial parent looking to oppose your spouse's relocation with your child, Long Island Divorce Attorney JAY D.RAXENBERG can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

Will You Marry Me...and Sign By the X?

Jay Raxenberg — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal recently posted an article about the increasingly popular prenuptial agreement. A prenuptial agreement is a written contract entered into before marriage, or during marriage in the case of a postnuptial agreement, that discusses what will happen to the couple's assets should the marriage end in divorce or death.

It is not unfathomable that in today's economy people want to protect their assets before getting married. Those with a successful career or a valuable stock portfolio are looking to safeguard these assets; couples entering into a second marriage want to ensure their children from a prior marriage acquire personal assets; young couples with wealthy parents want their inheritance to remain separate property. How do they do this? Prenuptial agreements.

In New York, Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(3) states, "An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded."

Case law also recognizes the enforceability of prenuptial agreements. For example, in Eckstein v. Eckstein the New York Appellate Court stated that "A duly executed antenuptial [or prenuptial] agreement is given the same presumption of legality as any other contract, commercial or otherwise, and is not, regardless of the fairness and reasonableness of the agreement, burdened by a presumption of fraud arising from the subsequent confidential relationship of the parties." In Brassey v. Brassey, the court went on to state that "there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties and that, therefore, a high order of evidence is necessary in order to overcome that presumption."

If you are considering a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement the Long Island divorce attorney Jay D. Raxenberg can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

Behind the Scenes of Cinderella: The Legal Rights and Obligations of Lady Tremaine

Jay Raxenberg — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:19:00 GMT

We all know the fairytale of Cinderella - the evil stepmother, two mean stepsisters, and the fairy god mother who saves the night. Let's focus on the evil stepmother. Unfortunately for Cinderella, her beloved father passed away leaving her in the care and custody of Lady Tremaine (a.k.a. the evil stepmother). Lady Tremaine forces Cinderella to cook, clean, and serve her and her two daughters. It is obvious in the story that Cinderella and Lady Tremaine despise each other. But, what would happen if the story was different...

What if Cinderella's father never died, he realized how evil Lady Tremaine was, and decided to divorce her. What would Lady Tremaine's legal rights and obligations be in regards to supporting Cinderella after the divorce?

Generally, a stepparent has no legal duty to support his or her stepchild during the marriage to the custodial parent. However, some states, including New York, have enacted statutes that require stepparents to provide support to their stepchildren during the marriage if the stepparent stands "in loco parentis." In loco parentis is established if the stepparent voluntarily takes the stepchild into his or her family and assumes parental obligations.

Even though a stepparent is expected to support a stepchild during the marriage in New York, this obligation ends upon his or her divorce from the child's biological parent. Only if an implicit or explicit promise was made by the stepparent to continue supporting his or her stepchild or, the court equitably estopps the stepparent from denying support, shall the stepparent's obligations continue. In the case of D.M. v. C.M., the New York court found that "The Husband's embrace of D.H. as "his" child through his declaration of his love for her, his participation in raising her during 11 years of the marriage, his provision of financial support for her before and after her biological father's death, and before and after the Husband's separation from the Wife, along with his statement to the Family Court of his willingness to continue to support her, together constitute a promise to support D.H. as his own child." In this case, the stepparent/husband was ordered to pay child support.

Now, suppose Lady Tremaine was not an evil stepmother and she and Cinderella got along wonderfully. Even though Lady Tremaine and Cinderella's father are getting divorced, Lady Tremaine still wants to have visitation with Cinderella. How will the court rule?

In New York, a stepparent petitioning for visitation rights will have to show that it is in the stepchild's best interest to maintain a relationship. Similar to grandparent visitation (see blog entitled "To Grandmother's House We Go!"), courts will give a strong presumption that a fit parent's decisions are in the child's best interests and will not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent's wishes. Thus, stepparents petitioning for visitation must show there is an established, strong relationship with the child and that it would be in the "best interest" of the child to continue to maintain the relationship.

Don't let the clock strike midnight! If you are a stepparent looking to obtain visitation with your stepchild the Law Offices of JAY D. RAXENBERG can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.

You, Your Spouse, and Facebook - Friends, Enemies, or Frienemies?

Jay Raxenberg — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:12:00 GMT

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn and Friendster are just a few of the many social networking websites that Americans - both young and old - are using. Some use these sites to keep in touch, meet new people, or promote their businesses. In the family law field, these sites have been useful (or detrimental if you are on the other side of the case) to discovering evidence that would implicate a spouse in adultery, perjury, or simple misbehavior.

Consider the myriad of possibilities with these social networking sites:

Status updates that indicate a romantic dinner with a boyfriend/girlfriend; Pictures that show you on vacation with a significant other; Wall posts professing your love to another; Pictures of mom doing drugs when she testified in court that she does not do drugs; Dad's dating profile listing himself as childless and single when he is petitioning for custody.

Something that at the time may seem meaningless and inconsequential can come back to haunt you when your spouse/spouse's attorney goes digging around your social network account. It is important that you do not share too much information on these sites and use privacy settings. A divorce can become emotional and difficult. Do not lash out at your spouse on these social networking sites because you never know who is looking!

If you are interested in obtaining a divorce Long Island Divorce Attorney JAY D. RAXENBERG can help. Click here to schedule a complimentary consultation.