You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION.

The Second Department determined father’s in-court actions during mother’s testimony did not provide a sufficient basis for the denial of visitation to father. In addition, the Second Department found that Family Court improperly conditioned future visitation by father upon the results of drug screenings and a mental health evaluation:

… Family Court’s determination to deny the father visitation with the parties’ children is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. ” [V]isitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child'” … . “As a general rule, some form of visitation by the noncustodial parent is always appropriate, absent exceptional circumstances, such as those in which it would be inimical to the welfare of the child or where a parent in some manner has forfeited his or her right to such access'”… .

Here, the Family Court improperly based its determination to deny the father parental access upon the father’s in-court demeanor … , including his inability “to control his temper in open Court” and an instance in which he called the mother “a liar” as she testified. However, no correlation was made between the father’s in-court demeanor and any detrimental effect on the children … . * * *

The Family Court also erred in directing the father to submit to random drug and alcohol screens, test negative, and undergo a comprehensive mental health evaluation as conditions of future visitation. “A court hearing a pending proceeding or action involving issues of custody or visitation may properly order a mental health evaluation of a parent, if warranted, prior to making a custody or visitation determination” … . A court may also “direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order” … . A court may not, however, ” order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights'” … . Matter of Gonzalez v Ross, 2016 NY Slip Op 04413, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION)/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION)

You might also like
LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB CUT OR PEDESTRIAN RAMP FOR WHICH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE.
PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A DEBT WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD MAY REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).
Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Not Sufficiently Corroborated for Admission Into Evidence
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT TO POLICE OFFICERS HOURS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS EXCITED UTTERANCES (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF INMATE BY OTHER INMATES WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THAT THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, OR THAT THE MEDICAL CARE WAS ADEQUATE, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DETECTIVE ENTERED FENCED BACKYARD WITHOUT A WARRANT, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE... JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER...