You are here: / / Family Court Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Terminate Father’s V...

Family Court Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Terminate Father’s Visitation

In finding that Family Court did not have enough information to determine whether the termination of father’s visitation was in the child’s best interest, in part because the court did not talk to the child in camera, the Second Department wrote:

A court may modify a visitation order upon a showing of changed circumstances and that modification is in the best interests of the child…. “A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation, and denial of that right must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child”…. A trial court’s determination that the best interests of the child warrants termination of visitation will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record…. “Although a child’s wishes are not determinative, his or her wishes, age, and maturity should be given considerable weight” … . “Generally, visitation should be decided after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the children. However, a hearing is not necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the children’s best interests”….  Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to determine whether the termination of the father’s visitation with the child was in the child’s best interest. For instance, although the attorney for the child indicated that the child, who was then 13 years old, did not wish to visit the father, the court failed to conduct an in camera examination of the child to ascertain the child’s views.  Matter of Zubizarreta v Hemminger, 2013 NY Slip Op 04617, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT.
Evidence of an “Intimate Relationship” Sufficient to Give Family Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Family Offense Proceeding
THE REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WITH NOTICE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURIES AND ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS; THEREFORE THE CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS; IN ADDITION, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT PROCURED THE ABSENCE OF A WITNESS; THEREFORE THE WITNESS’S STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO MAKE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AFTER THE DEFENSE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant Bus Company
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.

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

Refusal to Allow DSS Workers Into Apartment Did Not Constitute Neglect Late Notice of Election, Caused by Law Office Failure, Should Have Been All...