Battista v. Battista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Battista v. Battista

294 A.D.2d 941, 741 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624

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

DecidedMay 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 941 (Battista v. Battista) 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

Battista v. Battista, 294 A.D.2d 941, 741 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Battle, J.), entered February 28, 2001, which granted petitioner supervised visitation with the parties’ children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting petitioner father supervised visitation with the parties’ two minor children, the Law Guardian contends that Family Court improperly delegated to a mental health professional its authority to determine issues involving the best interests of the children. We agree. The order provides for supervised visitation with a mental health professional “for a period of time that supervision may be required.” The parties stipulated that, whatever the mental health professional recommends, “that’s what the parties will do.” Such delegation is improper (see Wills v Wills, 283 AD2d 1023, 1024; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d 691, 693; Matter of Henrietta D. v Jack K., 272 AD2d 995). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the petition. Present—Pine, J.P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Battle, J.), entered February 28, 2001, which granted petitioner supervised visitation with the parties’ children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting petitioner father supervised visitation with the parties’ two minor children, the Law Guardian contends that Family Court improperly delegated to a mental health professional its authority to determine issues involving the best interests of the children. We agree. The order provides for supervised visitation with a mental health professional “for a period of time that supervision may be required.” The parties stipulated that, whatever the mental health professional recommends, “that’s what the parties will do.” Such delegation is improper (see Wills v Wills, 283 AD2d 1023, 1024; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d 691, 693; Matter of Henrietta D. v Jack K., 272 AD2d 995). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the petition. Present—Pine, J.P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 941, 741 N.Y.S.2d 782, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battista-v-battista-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack