You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE VISITATION ISSUES TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL; THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR MODIFYING VISITATION ONCE FATHER HAS GAINED INSIGHT INTO THE CHILD’S NEEDS WAS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the judge should not have delegated the court’s authority to decide visitation issues to a mental health professional:

… [T]he court improperly delegated to a mental health professional its authority to determine issues involving the child’s best interests — namely, when visits could resume and whether they should be supervised … . Accordingly, we modify to delete that provision of the order only. Upon an application to resume the father’s visits with the child, the applicant shall have the burden to demonstrate changed circumstances and that the modification requested is in the child’s best interests … , at which time the court may consider evidence that includes, but is not limited to, the testimony of a mental health expert about whether the father has gained insight into the child’s medical and emotional needs and the impact of his behavior on the child. Matter of M.K. v H. M., 2022 NY Slip Op 05663, First Dept 10-11-22

Practice Point: Family Court cannot delegate its authority to decide visitation issues to a mental health professional. The proper procedure for allowing father’s visitation to resume was explained, i.e., an application to resume visitation demonstrating a change in circumstances followed by an evidentiary hearing, including the testimony of a mental health expert.

 

You might also like
NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK AS STEEL BEAMS WERE BEING HOISTED FROM THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).
A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE (DOING NOTHING), AS OPPOSED MISFEASANCE (FIRST DEPT).
LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS IN JAPAN, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS FAMILY COURT CIVIL-CONTEMPT MATTER; APPELLANT HAD APPEARED VIRTUALLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND STATED HE WOULD RETURN TO NEW YORK TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR WITNESSES READY FOR TRIAL IN ORDER... THE PHRASE “CONSUMMATION OF THE ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE” IN THE PRENUPTIAL...