You are here: / / Family Court Should Not Have Denied Father’s Request for Son’s...
,

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Father’s Request for Son’s Mental Health Records Without an In Camera Review

The First Department determined Family Court should not have denied father’s request for his son’s mental health records without first conducting and in camera review of the records and applying a balancing test required by Family Court Act section 1038 (d). There was no evidence of the alleged abuse except the child’s testimony, so the child’s credibility was the central issue:

Respondent father moved to subpoena the eldest child’s (the child) mental health treatment records. The Family Court, without conducting an in camera review of the requested records, denied the motion. Pursuant to Family Court Act (FCA) § 1038(d), the court must conduct a balancing test … . The statute requires that the court weigh “the need of the [moving] party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case” against “any potential harm to the child [arising] from the discovery.” Here, the Family Court should have reviewed the child’s mental health records in camera to determine if the records are relevant to the central issue of the child’s credibility before making its disclosure ruling.

The record contains no physical evidence of the alleged abuse and the case against respondent relies almost entirely on the credibility of the child, placing a great amount of weight on the child’s testimony… . Matter of Dean T Jr (Dean T Sr), 2014 NY Slip Op 03430, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

You might also like
IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANYTHING TO SECURE THE PIPE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE WHEN IT FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE “RECALCITRANT WORKER” AND “FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS” ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).​ ​
IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A MERELY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OR A GATEWAY FUNCTION IN ACCEPTING ASSETS FOR THE TRUST FROM A NONPARTY WHICH WAS ACTING FRAUDULENTLY; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCEPTING NON-NEGOTIABLE ASSETS WERE DIRECT OR INDIRECT AND WHETHER A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS BREACHED (FIRST DEPT).
“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained
AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A LADDER AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO CLIMB UP THE SIDE OF A BRIDGE FROM WHICH HE FELL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, COMPARATIVE FAULT IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL NURSE’S FAILURE TO TELL PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE A CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF BLOOD CLOTS AND SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE.
PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKERS SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THE BROKERS TO RENEW A POLICY (FIRST 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

Facts Did Not Support Family Court’s Dismissal of a Petition to Terminate... Aggravated Harassment Statute Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad/Criminal...