From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of DeJesus v. Tinoco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1999
267 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued November 1, 1999

December 13, 1999

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated May 6, 1998, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his application for visitation.

Robert L. Gartner, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.

Sanctuary for Families Center for Battered Women's Legal Services, New York, N.Y. (Dorchen Leidholdt, Ellen Rosenberg, and Mary Rothwell Davis of counsel), for respondent.

Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Fredericka Bashir of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.

THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which directed that a re-application for visitation rights must be accompanied by proof of participation in additional psychiatric therapy; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contentions, the acts of domestic violence perpetrated against the mother demonstrated that he possessed a character which is ill-suited to the difficult task of providing moral and intellectual guidance to the infant child (see, Matter of Irwin v. Schmidt, 236 A.D.2d 401, 402 ; Matter of Rohan v. Rohan, 213 A.D.2d 804, 806 ). Accordingly, based upon the evidence of the father's physical and verbal abuse of the mother, the Family Court's denial of the petition for visitation, with leave to renew, had a sound basis and therefore should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Chiofalo v. Bertolino, 233 A.D.2d 440 ).

However, since a court may not compel a party to undergo therapy as a precondition for a re-application for visitation rights (see,Matter of Cooper v. Wolkowitz, 215 A.D.2d 380 ; Jones v. Jones, 185 A.D.2d 228, 230 ; Nacson v. Nacson, 166 A.D.2d 510 ), the order must be modified accordingly (see, Nacson v. Nacson, supra, at 511).

SULLIVAN, J.P., JOY, KRAUSMAN, and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of DeJesus v. Tinoco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1999
267 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of DeJesus v. Tinoco

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF WILFREDO DeJESUS, appellant, v. LIZ TINOCO, respondent

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Zafran v. Zafran

Since the daughter's interests, and not just those of the father, are at stake, the father's refusal to…

Pudalov v. Pudalov

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in granting the respondent-appellant mother sole custody of…