Miriam R. v. Arthur D. R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miriam R. v. Arthur D. R.

85 A.D.2d 624, 445 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16444

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 624 (Miriam R. v. Arthur D. R.) 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

Miriam R. v. Arthur D. R., 85 A.D.2d 624, 445 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated May 27, 1981, as resettled by a further order of the same court, dated September 14,1981, which terminated the defendant father’s visitation rights pending a psychiatric evaluation of himself and his daughter. Order, as resettled, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A parent’s right to visitation is always subject to the best interest of the child (Matter of Denberg v Denberg, 34 Misc 2d 980, 986). In this case the noncustodial parent was granted his application to resume visitation. However, that grant was not absolute and the court specifically required that the meetings between the father and his daughter be evaluated by a neutral party for a six-month period. That party reported to the court that he found the meetings to be “counter productive to the well-being of the child at this time”. The court found the relationship between appellant and his infant daughter to be “traumatic to the child”. It was therefore a proper exercise of discretion to discontinue the father’s visitation rights pending further psychiatric evaluation of the father and his daughter (cf. Goldring v Goldring, 73 AD2d 955, 957). Rabin, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated May 27, 1981, as resettled by a further order of the same court, dated September 14,1981, which terminated the defendant father’s visitation rights pending a psychiatric evaluation of himself and his daughter. Order, as resettled, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A parent’s right to visitation is always subject to the best interest of the child (Matter of Denberg v Denberg, 34 Misc 2d 980, 986). In this case the noncustodial parent was granted his application to resume visitation. However, that grant was not absolute and the court specifically required that the meetings between the father and his daughter be evaluated by a neutral party for a six-month period. That party reported to the court that he found the meetings to be “counter productive to the well-being of the child at this time”. The court found the relationship between appellant and his infant daughter to be “traumatic to the child”. It was therefore a proper exercise of discretion to discontinue the father’s visitation rights pending further psychiatric evaluation of the father and his daughter (cf. Goldring v Goldring, 73 AD2d 955, 957). Rabin, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 624, 445 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miriam-r-v-arthur-d-r-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack