Anonymous v. Anonymous (Family Ct., 5/19)

Faced with a seemingly impossible situation where his client was being arrested and accused of Sexual Abuse of a daughter’s friend, Mr. Corletta turned the entire matter around in Anonymous v. Anonymous (Family Ct., 5/19).

In that case, the client was accused of Sexual Abuse by a friend of the client's daughter. The friend was 8 years old, but her mother went to police and demanded action. The complaint was highly questionable and completely uncorroborated. The other parent, hoping to capitalize on the situation, immediately moved for a change in custody, and supervised visitation. The parties had a shared custodial arrangement with equal access.

Mr. Corletta, quickly researching the law, vigorously opposed the application on grounds that a full plenary hearing was required before the custody arrangement could be changed. The other parent vigorously opposed and demanded a change for the “protection” of the party’s children.

Mr. Corletta argued the complaint was entirely uncorroborated, and that there was no basis to change the custodial arrangement, as the party’s children were completely unaffected and did not even know about the alleged complaint. Further, a full trial was necessary, not bare allegations.

The Court agreed, and after 2 subsequent Court appearances, it was determined by CPS the allegation was “unfounded”. The other parent then withdrew the Petition for a change in custody.

However, Mr. Corletta filed a Cross-Petition on his client’s behalf seeking a change in custody. He recommended not to withdraw the Cross-Petition. Therefore, Mr. Corletta managed to turn the matter around for his client, who was now on “offense”, seeking a change in the custodial arrangement in the client’s favor.

The criminal charge was also unsupported by any evidence and is facing a Motion to Dismiss.

The above case is illustrative of the “where there’s smoke, there is fire” mentality regarding sexual abuse complaints that are often weak and uncorroborated, and leads to situations where one party tries to take advantage of the situation without proof, in order to obtain an advantage.

Mr. Corletta did not allow this to happen to his client. He turned it around to his client's advantage by demonstrating the other parent was attempting to take advantage of a complaint, without proof, that lacked foundation. If anything, that parent will think twice about taking Mr. Corletta's client to Court again without thoroughly researching the situation first, which is what should have been done in the first place.