You are here: / / THE CHILD DID NOT WANT PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF...
,

THE CHILD DID NOT WANT PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER VISITATION WITH FATHER WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined, under the circumstances of this case, it was an abuse of discretion to order father’s visitation with the child without an in camera interview of the child:

“Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges” … . Although an appeal may be taken by the attorney for the child, “the child does not have full-party status and cannot veto a settlement reached by the parents and force a trial after the attorney for the child had a full [and] fair opportunity to be heard” … . However, “[t]he decision to conduct an in camera interview to determine the best interests of the child is within the discretion of the hearing court” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to conduct an in camera interview of the child, particularly given the child’s position, as stated by the attorney for the child, regarding his fear and hatred of the father, his expressed concerns about the father’s lifestyle, and his strong wishes not to have parental access with the father … . The record reflects that the child is of such an age and maturity that his preferences are necessary to create a sufficient record to determine what parental access would be in his best interests … . While the attorney for the child recounted the child’s objections on the record, in the absence of an in camera interview, the court did not have sufficient information to assess what parental access arrangement would be in the child’s best interests … . Matter of Dionis F. v Daniela Z., 2024 NY Slip Op 03822, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: Here the child objected to visitation with father. Visitation should not have been ordered without an in camera interview of the child.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVIEWED THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S NONFINAL ORDER AND GRANTED FATHER’S OBJECTIONS, FATHER’S ARGUMENT THAT HE WOULD NEED TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SPEND TIME AWAY FROM WORK TO LITIGATE THE MATTER DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF IRREPARABLE HARM NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A REVIEW OF A NONFINAL ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AFTER A SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ASSIGNED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO SUE DEFENDANT’S INSURER ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, THE INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF 30 POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 9; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE; HAD THE PEOPLE KNOWN DEFENDANT WAS PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS (DOCTORS), NOT THE POLICYHOLDERS’ EMPLOYER WHICH PAID THE PREMIUMS, ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVERSION OF THE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT DAMAGES... RECORDS OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY...