Amanda H. v. Paul Robert W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amanda H. v. Paul Robert W.

251 A.D.2d 578, 674 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7472

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 578 (Amanda H. v. Paul Robert W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amanda H. v. Paul Robert W., 251 A.D.2d 578, 674 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated August 12, 1996, as suspended his visitation with the child, and the mother cross-appeals from stated portions of the same order, which, inter alia, denied her application to relieve the Law Guardian.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in suspending the father’s visitation upon finding that it was not then in the best interests of the child (see, Patricia Lynn N. v Vincent Michael N., 152 AD2d 549, 550). The court responded appropriately to the allegations that the child was sexually traumatized, which allegations were supported by the experts who examined her and their testimony outlining the negative effects that visitation with her father was having on her. We note that, in general, the best interests of the child lie in her being nurtured and guided by both parents, and that the order provides for the resumption of supervised visitation by the father upon the fulfillment of certain specified conditions.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated August 12, 1996, as suspended his visitation with the child, and the mother cross-appeals from stated portions of the same order, which, inter alia, denied her application to relieve the Law Guardian.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in suspending the father’s visitation upon finding that it was not then in the best interests of the child (see, Patricia Lynn N. v Vincent Michael N., 152 AD2d 549, 550). The court responded appropriately to the allegations that the child was sexually traumatized, which allegations were supported by the experts who examined her and their testimony outlining the negative effects that visitation with her father was having on her. We note that, in general, the best interests of the child lie in her being nurtured and guided by both parents, and that the order provides for the resumption of supervised visitation by the father upon the fulfillment of certain specified conditions.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 578, 674 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amanda-h-v-paul-robert-w-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack