You are here: / / Mental Health Counseling Can Not Be Made a Condition of Visitation and...

Mental Health Counseling Can Not Be Made a Condition of Visitation and Court Can Not Delegate Authority to Determine When Visitation Should Be Resumed

In upholding Family Court’s denial of visitation to the mother, the Fourth Department noted:  “The court erred, however, in directing the mother to engage in mental health counseling as a condition of visitation and in delegating its authority to the children’s counselor to determine when a resumption of visitation would be appropriate … .”  Matter of Roskwitalski, v Fleming, CAF 12-01090, 370, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

You might also like
AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE A DOCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​
GRANDMOTHER’S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF VISITATION HEARD DESPITE THE FACT THAT GRANDMOTHER HAD BEEN GRANTED VISITATION WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING; DISSENT ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Syracuse Police Officer Did Not Have Authority to Arrest in Town of DeWitt, Judge Abused Discretion During Jury Selection.
Furtive Behavior Justified Pat Down Search
THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT)
Okay to Resentence to Determinate Sentence With No Postrelease Supervision Where Initial Sentence Omitted Reference to Postrelease Supervision
Court Has Discretion to Order an Informal Psychological Assessment in Response to Defense Counsel’s Request for an Article 730 Assessment to Determine Whether Defendant Is Competent to Stand Trial
THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO RESCIND THE CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT PROVIDERS WHICH DISCOURAGED THEM FROM SPEAKING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Hearsay Evidence in Neglect Proceeding Was Not Admissible—Petition Dismis... Criteria for Appellate Review of Arbitrator’s Award