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
Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative of the Implant Manufacturer Which Indicated Plaintiff Might Not Be a Good Candidate for the Implants
EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED; NOTICES OF MANDATORY MEETINGS REGARDING WORK-REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DID NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW.
Allegation in Notice of Claim that Defendant Failed to Maintain a Stairway Was Sufficient to Encompass the Allegation the Handrail Was Obstructed and Could Not Be Used
SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT WHICH RENTED OUT THE AERIAL LIFT WHICH MALFUNCTIONED WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, PROPERLY SURVIVED (FIRST DEPT).
THE NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM (PART 2 OF THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT OF 1986), WHICH LIMITS THE LIABILITY OF A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS A VACCINE TO $1000, DOES NOT APPLY TO PHYSICIANS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY TREAT A VACCINATED PERSON FOR A VACCINE-RELATED CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INVENTORY LIST WAS CREATED FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH WAS A VALID “INVENTORY SEARCH” (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...