You are here: / / THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A VISITATION...
,

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A VISITATION SCHEDULE FOR FATHER; FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND COUNSELING MAY BE APPROPRIATE WHERE, AS HERE, A CHILD REFUSES VISITATION WITH A PARENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improperly delegated to mother the authority to control father’s visitation with the child. The First Department noted that forensic mental health examinations may be appropriate where, as here,  a child refuses to visit with a parent:

Here, Family Court’s order that the father have visitation as agreed between the parties in consultation with the child is an impermissible delegation of its authority to the mother and child, and essentially causes the father to have no visitation at all. Furthermore, despite the father’s lack of sensitivity to the child … we cannot find on this record that there was a showing adequate to justify terminating the father’s contact with the child; that is, that any form of contact under all circumstances would be harmful to the child’s welfare.

We note that Family Court may order forensic mental health evaluations where a visitation petition is pending and where doing so will facilitate the court’s determination (Family Court Act § 251[A]; 22 NYCRR 202.18). “[T]he value of forensic evaluations of the parents and children has long been recognized,” including when a child refuses to visit with a parent … . We further note that a court may place restrictions on visitation that promote the child’s best interests and are not unduly restrictive, including ordering therapeutic or other kinds of supervised visitation … . The court may also make directives as to the amount and type of contact a parent has with the child between visits. Finally, a court may direct a parent to attend counseling as a component of a visitation plan, where doing so promotes the child’s best interests … . Matter of Michael B. v Patricia S., 2024 NY Slip Op 06005, First Dept 12-3-24

Practice Point: Family Court cannot not delegate to a parent its authority to set the other parent’s visitation schedule.

Practice Point: Where a child refuses to visit with a parent, the court may order forensic mental health evaluations and counseling.

 

You might also like
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE ANNOUNCED THEIR PURPOSE (ARREST WARRANT) BEFORE ENTERING THE APARTMENT; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT DENY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT, THEREFORE JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON THE COURT, THE MECHANICS OF SUCCESSFULLY DENYING JURISDICTION EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIATION TREATMENT CLINIC TO BE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
CONFLICTING ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON A STAIRWAY PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS POLICE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF NEW JERSEY APARTMENT BUILDING, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN THE COMMON AREAS OF THE BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.

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 THE GUARANTEES REQUIRED THAT THE TENANT SURRENDER THE PREMISES IN THE... PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY...