In re Nathaniel T.

97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20812
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 4, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 973 (In re Nathaniel T.) 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
In re Nathaniel T., 97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Monroe County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the [974]*974following memorandum: On this record, Family Court’s order which terminated all parental visitation with respondents’ two sons “until further order of this court” and limited visitations with respondents’ three daughters to one supervised “visit with one (1) child each week for one (1) hour” is unduly restrictive and should be modified. Under these terms, it will indeed be difficult, if not impossible, to rehabilitate and reunite the family unit. Inasmuch as all visitation is supervised, a more frequent visitation schedule would be in the best interests of the children. In determining whether visitation between a parent and child should be suspended, the court is to apply a “best interest of the child” standard. However, it is presumed that parental visitation is in the best interest of the child in the absence of proof that it will be harmful (see Chirumbolo v Chirumbolo, 75 AD2d 992; FarhivFarhi, 64 AD2d 840). It is the purpose of the Family Court Act to rehabilitate and reunite families whenever possible. The matter of visitation is therefore remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings (see Matter of Shawn G., 76 AD2d 886). We have considered respondents’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J. — neglect.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

GUILLERMO, MARIA M. v. AGRAMONTE, DOMINGO A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Guillermo v. Agramonte
137 A.D.3d 1767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
CORMIER, MICHELLE v. CLARKE, ROXANNE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Granger v. Misercola
990 N.E.2d 110 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)
FOX, JAMES M. v. FOX, ELAINE H.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Fox v. Fox
93 A.D.3d 1224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Matter of Jaime S.
2005 NY Slip Op 51636(U) (Monroe Family Court, 2005)
People v. Mc Collough
186 Misc. 2d 599 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
Vann v. Vann
187 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Patricia Lynn N. v. Vincent Michael N.
152 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Kadin v. Kadin
131 A.D.2d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Wise v. Del Toro
122 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re Nathaniel T.
112 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
In re Kevin R.
112 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nathaniel-t-nyappdiv-1983.