While the Chief editor of Legal Pub is out being a real lawyer (trying a jury trial), Ms. Calabaza once again steps up to the plate and knocks one out of the park with a great story idea from the New York Law Journal.
Susan Mandel, Allergic Mom, Grabs Attention of New York Law Journal `by Ms. Calabaza
Domestic disputes can take many forms. Susan Mandel has claimed that she is allergic to her ex-husband's cat and as a result the couples two children should not visit their father's home. A Long Island, N.Y., judge (Acting Supreme Court Justice Hope S. Zimmerman ) has denied her request. Justice Zimmerman stated in Mandel v. Mandel, 203448/06, that there was no "legal or factual basis to exclude the children" from their father's apartment. The cat is an 18-month-old orange and white male tabby named Indie. The couple is in the process of divorcing.
In the summer of 2007, Ms. Mandel testified that she was hospitalized with a "severe attack brought on by exposure to the cat through the children." Since then, the children have not visited their father at his apartment. Mr. Mandel testified that his ex wife did not object to the children visiting him at the home until he stopped paying the mortgage on the marital residence.
Justice Zimmerman instructed that Ms. Mandel should "make a change of clothes available in the garage for the children." In turn, the children will take "the reasonable precaution" of changing their clothes before re-entering their home after visits with their father.
Jeffrey S. Schecter represented Mr. Mandel.
Mark O. Wasserman represented Ms. Mandel.
Ms. Mandel apparently had no further comment. Perhaps the cat has her tongue?
Update 6-26-08: Susan Mandel has apparently stopped by and given us an exclusive insight into her side of the story. Readers are encouraged to read comment number 9!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
L.S.
Seems like just another way for a woman to try to keep a man away from his kids.
Sounds like the type of crap my ex would pull...
I wish my ex had gotten the cat scratch fever!
Why is divorce so bitter. Kids are the ones that end up suffering.
Interesting story Ms. C.
I have to give her kudo's for creativity. I should have used this excuse during my divorce.
He should have kept paying the mortgage.
BTW, everyone suffers in a divorce.
I cannot tell you how offensive I found your article and these moronic posts. You've made a mockery of the situation which is quite serious since I am a chronic asthmatic. My asthma was exacerbated as a result of multiple exposures to my children who come home after living with a cat all weekend full of cat hair and cat dander over the course of nine months because their father would not adhere to precautions that were emailed to him back on November 6th, 2006. Even though I was hospitalized on July 2, 2007 for a severe asthmatic attack when my children came home as a result of the cat "molting", they were allowed to see their father [whenever they wanted to] just not "in-home" visits. You neglected to mention that my soon to be ex-husband, knowingly
bought the cat out of spite, as an exercise of control [who's the scorned one???]. You also neglected to mention that my soon to be ex-husband, when begged by my children to get rid of the cat, CHOSE the cat that he had for 1 year over his children he's had for seventeen! You also neglected to mention that he has taken me to the hospital several times throughout our 20 year relationship with asthmatic reactions to cats from his relatives homes. You also neglected to mention that as a result of my hospitalizations from asthma and allergies Stan and I made a conscious decision to have lizards, fish and frogs instead of cats and dogs as pets. You also neglected to mention that the Judge made her decision based on legal fact finding and the children wanting to see their father; that she is there to protect them and her findings were based on law, not medicine. You also neglected to mention that the Judge is not an allergy or asthma sufferer and therefore cannot relate to not being able to breath or asthmatic fatalities, however if my children were the ones to be suffering from asthma or allergies she would have ruled differently - in favor of the children. You also neglected to mention that when my attorney said we have an expert witness [my pulmonologist] she said "that won't be necessary" because her mind was already made up. The Judge did not say, "send the kids to their dad with a change of clothing - so they could come home dander free." And if you do your research properly you would know that is NOT how you remove cat hair/dander from people, not only does it get on your clothing and shoes but it gets on your hair and skin as well! You can say that I was given a death sentence. You can say that yes, now the children can have "in home visits" with their dad at the expense of my health. You can say that it will be difficult for me to be a good mother to my children if I'm sick, dibiliated, or dead! Susan Mandel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot tell you how offensive I found this article. You've made a mockery of the situation which is quite serious since I am a chronic asthmatic. My asthma was exacerbated as a result of multiple exposures to my children who come home after living with a cat all weekend full of cat hair and cat dander over the course of nine months because their father would not adhere to precautions that were emailed to him back on November 6th, 2006. Even though I was hospitalized on July 2, 2007 for a severe asthmatic attack when my children came home as a result of the cat "molting", they were allowed to see their father [whenever they wanted to] just not "in-home" visits. You neglected to mention that my soon to be ex-husband, knowingly
bought the cat out of spite, as an exercise of control [who's the scorned one?]. You also neglected to mention that my soon to be ex-husband, when begged by my children to get rid of the cat, CHOSE the cat that he had for 1 year over his children he's had for seventeen! You also neglected to mention that he has taken me to the hospital several times throughout our 20 year relationship with asthmatic reactions to cats from his relatives homes. You also neglected to mention that as a result of my hospitalizations from asthma and allergies Stan and I made a conscious decision to have lizards, fish and frogs instead of cats and dogs as pets. You also neglected to mention that the Judge made her decision based on legal fact finding and the children wanting to see their father; that she is there to protect them and her findings were based on law, not medicine. You also neglected to mention that the Judge is not an allergy or asthma sufferer and therefore cannot relate to not being able to breath or asthmatic fatalities, however if my children were the ones to be suffering from asthma or allergies she would have ruled differently - in favor of the children. You also neglected to mention that when my attorney said we have an expert witness [my pulmonologist] she said "that won't be necessary" because her mind was already made up.The Judge did not say, "'send the kids to their dad with a change of clothing - so they could come home dander free." And if you do your research properly you would know that is NOT how you remove cat hair/dander from people, not only does it get on your clothing and shoes but it gets on your hair and skin as well! You can say that I was given a death sentence. You can say that yes, now the children can have "in home visits" with their dad at the expense of my health.You can say that it will be difficult for me to be a good mother to my children if I'm sick, dibiliated, or dead! Susan Mandel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan, thank you for sharing your comments. Legal Pub always welcomes both sides of the story. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your side of the story.
Allergic reactions can be very serious. The fact that the cat hair is transported by your children makes it a serious but difficult situation.
Please keep us informed and let us know how you are doing. In the interest of fairness we will add a reference to your comment on the mains story page.
L.P. Fair coverage of the story in my opinion. The additional update identifying Susan's comments were very nice of you to include on the story page.
You are the reason I read this blog!
Fair presentation on a heated topic. Wish you went back to Bailey articles
I can now see both sides...
just another couple fighting like cats and ...well cats.
you do a good job showing both sides.
Post a Comment