Ceasar A. R. v. Raquel D.

179 A.D.2d 574
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 574 (Ceasar A. R. v. Raquel D.) 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
Ceasar A. R. v. Raquel D., 179 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Exceptional circumstances clearly justified the denial of [575]*575visitation as inimical to the welfare of the children (Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175). Petitioner has been in prison continuously since 1984. His three children at first visited him there, but stopped doing so in 1987 after he was convicted of murdering their mother and raping their stepsister. The court’s in camera interview with the children and the report of a court-appointed psychiatrist support a finding that the children fear their father and do not want to visit him. Although petitioner’s principal witness testified that the children do want to visit him but are intimidated from doing so by respondent, their temporary guardian and maternal grandmother, the court found this testimony to be incredible. Clearly, neither petitioner’s incarceration (Matter of Wise v Del Toro, 122 AD2d 714), nor the children’s desire not to see him (Matter of Hughes v Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449), standing alone, were deemed by the court to be determinative. Petitioner’s murder of the children’s mother and rape of their sister, the children’s fear of petitioner, and the fact that the children have been doing very well in their grandmother’s care without mandated supervision were obviously taken into account as relevant circumstances bearing on the best interest of the children. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

B.G. v. A.M.O.
57 A.D.3d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Russo v. Russo
282 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
John R. v. Marlene C.
179 Misc. 2d 72 (New York Family Court, 1998)
Rogowski v. Rogowski
251 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Teixeria v. Teixeria
205 A.D.2d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 A.D.2d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ceasar-a-r-v-raquel-d-nyappdiv-1992.