From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Adam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 16, 1993
195 A.D.2d 1074 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

July 16, 1993

Appeal from the Allegany County Family Court, Feeman, Jr., J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: "The denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent constitutes such a drastic remedy that it should be ordered only when there are compelling reasons, and there must be substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the children's welfare" (Vasile v. Vasile, 116 A.D.2d 1021; see also, Gowan v. Menga, 178 A.D.2d 1021, 1022; De Pinto v. De Pinto, 98 A.D.2d 985; Parker v Ford, 89 A.D.2d 806). There was substantial evidence to support the court's termination of respondent's visitation rights. The record establishes that respondent used excessive physical force on the children, repeatedly disregarded court orders with respect to visitation and custody, and otherwise used the children as pawns in his battles with his ex-wife.

There is no merit to respondent's contention that the court erred in punishing him for contempt of court by denying him visitation. Although respondent was found in contempt, determination of an appropriate sanction was deferred by the court. The order terminating visitation was based upon the court's finding that continued visitation was inadvisable.

The court erred, however, in making any future application for visitation by respondent subject to psychological evaluation and counseling. Although such conditions could properly be imposed with respect to a pending petition (see, Family Ct Act § 251), the court lacked the authority to impose such a precondition with respect to a future petition (see, Jones v. Jones, 185 A.D.2d 228, 230; Nacson v. Nacson, 166 A.D.2d 510, 511; Schneider v Schneider, 127 A.D.2d 491, 495, affd sub nom. Paul B.S. v. Pamela J.S., 70 N.Y.2d 739).

We, therefore, modify the third ordering paragraph of Family Court's order by striking those portions directing a psychological evaluation and counseling as preconditions to a future petition for visitation.


Summaries of

Matter of Adam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 16, 1993
195 A.D.2d 1074 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Adam

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ADAM H. and Another, Infants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 16, 1993

Citations

195 A.D.2d 1074 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 406

Citing Cases

Matter of Thaxton v. Morro

A change in custody is warranted only upon a showing of sufficient change in circumstances manifesting that…

Zafran v. Zafran

In this case, the father was permitted to apply for a temporary order of visitation (no final visitation…