You are here: / / FATHER’S ABILITY TO BRING FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT...
,

FATHER’S ABILITY TO BRING FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS UNDERGOING TREATMENT OR COUNSELING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s ability to bring future custody petitions should not have been condition upon father’s undergoing counseling or treatment:

A court deciding a custody proceeding may “direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a [parental access] or custody order” … . “A court may not, however, order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future [parental access] or reapplication for [parental access] rights” … . Here, the Family Court erred in conditioning the filing of any future petitions by the father to modify parental access upon his successful completion of an anger management class and a negative drug test, and we modify the order so as to eliminate that condition. Matter of Hardy v Hardy. 2021 NY Slip Op 03320. Second Dept 5-26-21

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Contract for the Installation of Marble Staircase Landings Gave Rise to Tort Liability to Third Party (Plaintiff) Stemming from the Collapse of a Landing
Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MAY HAVE STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN, HE NEVERTHELESS FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Mother Never Waived Her Right to Counsel in Custody Proceedings–Denial of Mother’s Petition for Custody Reversed
ABSENT AN ORDER BASED UPON AN EXCEPTION TO THE SECRECY PROVSIONS IN TAX LAW SECTION 697, THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER TAX FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID WAGES AND TIPS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS DRIVER RESPONDED REASONABLY UPON HEARING THE SIREN OF A FIRE TRUCK APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES (SECOND DEPT). ​
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
DESPITE MOTHER’S DEFAULT, CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT A HEARING AND FINDINGS ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S THEORY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE... FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES TO EQUALLY SHARE THE COSTS...