You are here: / / FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION...

FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE.

The Second Department determined that Family Court properly denied mother’s motion for kinship visitation because a criminal court order of protection was in place:

As a general rule, the “Family Court does not have jurisdiction to countermand the provisions of a criminal court order of protection” … . Thus, where a criminal court order of protection bars contact between a parent and child, the parent may not obtain visitation until the order of protection is vacated or modified by the criminal court … . However, the criminal court has authority to determine whether its order of protection is “subject to” subsequent Family Court orders, and where the criminal court order of protection “expressly contemplates future amendment of its terms by a subsequent Family Court order pertaining to custody and visitation,” the Family Court is not precluded from granting custody or visitation by the terms of the order of protection … . Here, since the Supreme Court’s temporary order of protection dated April 1, 2016, did not state that it was “subject to” subsequent Family Court orders, the Family Court had no basis to permit “kinship visitation” supervised by the maternal grandmother. Matter of Rihana J.H. (Quianna J.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01202, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ORDER OF PROTECTION, FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW,  FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)

You might also like
JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Structure on a Sports Field (Pole Vault Box) Was Open and Obvious Such that No Protection or Warning Was Required for Pedestrians
WHERE THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND MUST RULE BEFORE ANY RELATED ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity Under the Labor Law
STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A LANDMARK BUILDING WERE DEEMED NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION AND HYPERBOLE (SECOND DEPT).
SEVERE ABUSE FINDING COULD ONLY BE MADE AGAINST A LEGAL PARENT, PRESUMPTION MOTHER’S HUSBAND IS THE FATHER OF THE CHILDREN WAS REBUTTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.

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

FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARIN... CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD...