You are here: / / Family Court Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Terminate Father’s V...

Family Court Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Terminate Father’s Visitation

In finding that Family Court did not have enough information to determine whether the termination of father’s visitation was in the child’s best interest, in part because the court did not talk to the child in camera, the Second Department wrote:

A court may modify a visitation order upon a showing of changed circumstances and that modification is in the best interests of the child…. “A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation, and denial of that right must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child”…. A trial court’s determination that the best interests of the child warrants termination of visitation will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record…. “Although a child’s wishes are not determinative, his or her wishes, age, and maturity should be given considerable weight” … . “Generally, visitation should be decided after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the children. However, a hearing is not necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the children’s best interests”….  Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to determine whether the termination of the father’s visitation with the child was in the child’s best interest. For instance, although the attorney for the child indicated that the child, who was then 13 years old, did not wish to visit the father, the court failed to conduct an in camera examination of the child to ascertain the child’s views.  Matter of Zubizarreta v Hemminger, 2013 NY Slip Op 04617, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Efforts Created or Exacerbated Icy Condition
Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained
THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR INJURY IN UTERO WHERE, AS HERE, THE CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Under a Batson Analysis, the Prosecutor’s Peremptory Challenges to Two Black Jurors Were “Pretextual” Requiring Reversal
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (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

Refusal to Allow DSS Workers Into Apartment Did Not Constitute Neglect Late Notice of Election, Caused by Law Office Failure, Should Have Been All...