You are here: / / Court Can Not Order Treatment as Condition of Future Visitation—Okay...

Court Can Not Order Treatment as Condition of Future Visitation—Okay to Order Treatment as Component of Supervised Visitation

The Second Department noted that Family Court should not have ordered a parent to undergo treatment as a condition of future visitation.  Rather treatment should have been ordered as a component of supervised visitation:

…”[A] court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights, but may only direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of visitation”…. Thus, the Family Court should have directed the mother to enroll in an assisted outpatient treatment program as a component of supervised visitation. Matter of Torres v Ojeda, 2013 NY Slip Op 05091, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
Father Demonstrated Child Was Constructively Emancipated/Child Support Obligation Terminated
Child Should Not Have Been Removed from Foster Parents in Favor of Maternal Uncle
THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THE HOSPITAL WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER.
ONE INCH GAP AT THE TOP OF EXTERIOR STEPS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Company Which Contracted with County to Maintain Traffic Signals Did Not Owe a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged a Malfunctioning Traffic Signal Caused an Accident in Which She Was Injured

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

Consent Order Not Appealable; Open Court Stipulation Valid Neglect Based on Failure to Provide Child with Cleft Palate Proper Nutritio...