You are here: / / COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION...
,

COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS; HOWEVER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT MAY BE MADE A COMPONENT OF CURRENT PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined the court should not have made counseling or treatment a condition for any future modification of parental access, but Family Court appropriately directed mother to submit to treatment as a component of her current parental access:

… [A] “court deciding a custody proceeding may properly direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order” … . “However, a court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights” … . Here, the Family Court should not have conditioned any future modification of the mother’s parental access with the child, in effect, upon her enrollment in mental health treatment and her resulting improvement in mental status, emotional regulation, psychological functioning, and empathy for the child … . Nonetheless, to the extent the court directed the mother to submit to such treatment as a component of her parental access, this was proper … . Matter of Nathaniel v Mauvais, 2025 NY Slip Op 00223, Second Dept 1-15-257

Practice Point: Counseling or treatment can be made a component of current parental access but cannot be made a condition for any future modification of parental access.

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT (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).
Child Unborn When Sibling Found to Be Neglected Properly Found to Be Derivatively Neglected—Summary Judgment Properly Granted
Warrantless Search of a Backpack Dropped During a Struggle with Police Was Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Remarks Made In the Course of Litigation Privileged
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO SUE FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM A TRIAL BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF PLAINTIFFS’ CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE.

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 CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF... THE JUDGE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CONDUCTING...