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
UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Question of Fact Whether Owner of Servient State Had Duty to Maintain Easement in Safe Condition/Easement Used for Servient-Estate-Owner’s Own Purposes
Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop
STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
Open and Obvious Condition Precluded Slip and Fall Suit
JUDGES SHOULD NOT ASK A DEFENDANT WHETHER HE OR SHE IS A US CITIZEN IN PLEA PROCEEDINGS; RATHER JUDGES SHOULD INFORM ALL DEFENDANTS THE PLEA TO A FELONY MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION IF HE OR SHE IS NOT A US CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Embankment Near a Stream Was an “Open and Obvious” Dangerous Condition at 3 a.m.
APPELLANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, DID NOT SUPERVISE AND CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CONSTRUCTION-DEBRIS-SLIP-AND-FALL CASE (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 © 2026 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...