CASES ON ORDERING THERAPY ETC. IN CUSTODY AND VISITATION MATTERS
The areas of custody and visitation are remarkable for their lack of
detailed governing statutes typical of other cases over which Family Court has
jurisdiction. These opinions
demonstrate the complexity of dispositional issues in such proceedings.
Conforti v.
Conforti, 46 A.D.3d 877, 848 N.Y.S.2d 359 (2d Dep't 2007)
excerpt at 878:
[I]t was improper for the Family Court to impose conditions the
mother must fulfill in order to justify a future petition for a change of
custody (see Matter of Grassi v Grassi, 28 AD3d 482, 483, 812 NYS2d 638 [2006]; Matter of Alex LL. v Albany County Dept. of Social Servs., 270 AD2d 523, 527, 703 NYS2d 577 [2000]; cf. Matter of Notley v Schmeid, 220 AD2d 509, 511, 632 NYS2d 195 [1995])
-o0o-
In re Alex LL, 270 A.D.2d 523, 703 N.Y.S.2d 577 (3d
excerpt at 527:
[A]lthough Family Court had authority to
order the father to submit to a psychological examination (Family Ct Act §
251 [a]), it had no right to require him to participate in supervised
therapeutic visitations as a condition precedent to the entertainment of the
merits of the custody petition (see, Matter of Dennison v Short, 229 AD2d 676,
677; [***10] Besharov,
Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act
§ 251, at 261-262).
-o0o-
Notley v. Schmeid,
220 A.D.2d 509, 632 N.Y.S.2d 195 (2d
excerpt
at 511:
[T]he court was without authority to order counseling for the
parties as an implied condition of awarding custody and visitation (see, Matter of Tito G. v Thelma G., 187 AD2d 651, 652; Ramshaw v Ramshaw, 186 AD2d 243).
-o0o-
Zafran v. Zafran,
28 A.D>3d 753, 814 N.Y.S.2d 669 (2d
excerpt at 756:
The Supreme Court's subsequent order dated July 16, 2004, directed
the father to submit to a psychiatric evaluation in order to "update the
[c]ourt's forensics" and, thus, facilitate the
court's ultimate determination of the visitation issue, a measure which clearly
does not constitute [***673] an
impermissible requirement of participation in therapy as a condition to
applying for visitation (see Family Ct Act § 251; Matter of Alex LL. v
Albany County Dept. of Social Servs., 270 AD2d 523,
527, 703 NYS2d 577 [2000]; Matter of Tito G. v Thelma G., supra; Schneider v
Schneider, supra at 495; Bubbins v Bubbins, 114 AD2d 346, 348, 493 NYS2d 869 [1985]; Matter of
Paris v Paris, supra; Grado v Grado,
supra; Matter of Freeman v Freeman, 96 Misc 2d 302,
408 NYS2d 994 [1978]).
-o0o-
Grassi v. Grassi, 28 A.D.3d 482, 812 N.Y.S.2d 638 (2d
excerpt at 483:
[W]e agree with the mother's contention that it was improper [***640] for the Family Court to bar her from petitioning for visitation without first demonstrating "that she has maintained sobriety for a significant period of time; maintained regular therapy sessions; undergone a complete psychiatric in-depth extensive evaluation; and, if prescribed medication, she has complied and taken medication as directed" (see Matter of Williams v O'Toole, supra). HN2Although the court may, in appropriate circumstances, require a party to obtain counseling and treatment as a component of a custody or visitation order (see Matter of Irwin v Schmidt, 236 AD2d 401, 653 NYS2d 627 [1997]; Landau v Landau, 214 AD2d 541, 625 NYS2d 239 [1995]; Matter of Remillard v Luck, 2 AD3d 1179, 768 NYS2d 714 [2003]; Matter of Mongiardo v Mongiardo, 232 AD2d 741, 649 NYS2d 45 [1996]), it has no authority to compel a parent to undergo therapy as a condition to a future application for custody or visitation (see Pudalov v Pudalov, 308 AD2d 524, 764 NYS2d 831 [2003]; Matter of DeJesus v Tinoco, 267 AD2d 308, 699 NYS2d 905 [1999]).
Last
updated January 11, 2011
Links to other
sites, or links to this site from any other sites, do not imply any endorsement
of, or relationship with, such other sites.