You are here: / / FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION...

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PARENTS’ CARE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE PARENTS’ APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHILDREN RETURNED TO THEM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record did not support ordering unsupervised visitation with the parents:

Respondents continue to refuse to admit or even to acknowledge the possibility that the children, all of whom tested positive for sexually transmitted diseases (STD), were sexually abused. Even as recently as May 2018, and although they ostensibly had participated in various services and counseling, the parents continued to offer implausible explanations for the children’s medical condition. …

In November 2017, Family Court (Ta-Tanisha James, J.) denied the parents’ application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to have the children returned to their care. Since then there has been no change in the circumstances upon which the denial of that application was based. The court (Frias-Colon, J.) issued the instant order without benefit of a full fact-finding hearing, apparently to avoid delay and stagnation in the proceeding. This justification is inadequate. The permanency reports and treatment updates before the court reiterated the parents’ ongoing inability to acknowledge that their children had been sexually abused and did not advocate unsupervised visitation. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the parents’ attitude toward, and role in, the events at issue, we find that the court abused its discretion in ordering unsupervised visitation on the record before it. Matter of Abass D. (Mamadou D.–Sitan D.), 2018 NY Slip Op 07968, First Dept 11-20-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PARENTS’ CARE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE PARENTS’ APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHILDREN RETURNED TO THEM (FIRST DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PARENTS’ CARE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE PARENTS’ APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHILDREN RETURNED TO THEM (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
BECAUSE THE NONPARTY WITNESS, WHO WAS PLAINTIFF’S ASSAILANT, HAD A COMMON NAME AND WAS HOMELESS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WITNESS’S DATE OF BIRTH AS AN AID IN LOCATING HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE WITNESS’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
Judge’s Refusal to Grant a One-Day Adjournment to Allow Defendant to Present a Witness (After the Judge Granted the People’s Request for a Missing-Witness Jury Instruction) Was Reversible Error
SUPREME COURT HAD RULED THAT, AT THE TIME HE WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A TASK COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF’S TASK AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE; THE LABOR LAW COVERS ALL TASKS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RELEVANT WORK, HERE THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT).
Conviction Based Upon Plea Where Defendant Was Not Advised of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Is Unconstitutional for Predicate Felony Purposes—Catu Applied Retroactively
TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH SHE TRIPPED AND FELL, THE FALL OCCURRED WITHIN THE 15-DAY GRACE PERIOD FOR THE NOTICE THE CITY DID RECEIVE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (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

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE POSSESSION OF THE MORTGAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE NOTE,... PRODUCTION OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDS PROPERLY REQUESTED, THE BOARD’S PAYMENT...