Results-Driven Child Custody Attorney

It happened in a recent case Mr. Corletta handled in N.M. v. B.T. (Mon. Co. Fam. Ct., 5/2021).

In that case, Petitioner had filed no less than 5 Custody Petitions in less than four years against Mr. Corletta’s client, attempting to show Mr. Corletta’s client was unfit and restrict or take away the client’s access to the party’s child. Petitioner has not been successful in restricting access to the child.

This time, the Petitioner tried a different tack; false allegations of sexual abuse, purportedly coming from a 4-year-old, were completely uncorroborated by any medical or other evidence.

The problem with Petitioner’s latest approach was that in seeking a “Stay Away” Order of Protection in a Family Court Article 8 proceeding, Petitioner came into contact with Mr. Corletta’s knowledge of the law.

Hearsay, while allowed in Custody proceedings, is not allowed in Article 8 proceedings, where an Order of Protection is sought, due to the implications of an Order of Protection. Therefore, Petitioner’s attempt to use a 4-year-old’s hearsay statements was roundly rebuffed by Mr. Corletta, who made an immediate Motion to Dismiss, citing the fact that the Petition was based entirely on inadmissible hearsay.

Mr. Corletta supported this argument with Decisions from 3 of the 4 New York Appellate Divisions, which have ruled on this issue.

Aside from the hearsay statements of this 4-year-old, who would not be competent to testify in Court anyway, there was no other proof whatsoever, medical or otherwise.

Notwithstanding, Petitioner’s Court-appointed attorney and the Attorney For the Child, despite knowing the facts upon which the Petition was based were without evidentiary basis, continued to advocate for the exclusion of Mr. Corletta’s client from the child, based solely on Petitioner’s unsubstantiated claims.

Mr. Corletta further persisted in his argument, filing a Supplemental Memorandum of Law. The Referee ultimately agreed with Mr. Corletta, dismissing the Petition in its entirety and vacating the Order of Protection, thereby clearing Mr. Corletta’s client to exercise visitation with the young child, whom the client had not seen for six months.

This case illustrates the perniciousness of false allegations of Sexual Abuse, and as held by the Appellate Division in another case Mr. Corletta handled; Marino v. Marino 90 AD3d 1694 (4th Dept., 2011), parents who make false allegations of Sexual Abuse seeking to interfere with the other parent’s relationship with the child(ren) are presumptively unfit to parent.