In re Reece R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Reece R.

89 A.D.3d 855, 932 N.Y.2d 343

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 2011·Published

Opinion

In light of the respective positions of the parties in the guardianship proceeding and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Family Court properly granted the petition for guardianship (cf. Family Ct Act §§ 661, 1089-a).

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that, initially, the mother’s visitation with the subject child should be supervised (see Matter of Pope v Pope, 12 AD3d 516 [2004]; Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Matter of Amanda H. v Paul Robert W., 251 AD2d 578 [1998]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In light of the respective positions of the parties in the guardianship proceeding and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Family Court properly granted the petition for guardianship (cf. Family Ct Act §§ 661, 1089-a).

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that, initially, the mother’s visitation with the subject child should be supervised (see Matter of Pope v Pope, 12 AD3d 516 [2004]; Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Matter of Amanda H. v Paul Robert W., 251 AD2d 578 [1998]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

In re Reece R., 89 A.D.3d 855, 932 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 855 (In re Reece R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related