Richard D. v. Wendy P.

New York Court of Appeals

Richard D. v. Wendy P.

393 N.E.2d 1022, 47 N.Y.2d 943, 419 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2196

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 393 N.E.2d 1022 (Richard D. v. Wendy P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard D. v. Wendy P., 393 N.E.2d 1022, 47 N.Y.2d 943, 419 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2196 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court, after hearing testimony from both parents and other witnesses and considering psychological reports submitted by a forensic team appointed by the court, concluded that it would be in the child’s best interests for custody to be awarded to the child’s father. On the record we find no basis for setting aside that determination.

The question as to whether additional inquiry by other experts would be helpful was essentially a matter within the discretion of the court and in this case it cannot be said that this discretion was not properly exercised. Nor did the court err in failing to appoint a Law Guardian sua sponte. There is no requirement that the court invariably appoint a Law Guardian for the child in every case where parents who are *945 unmarried, divorced or separated, seek a judicial determination of child custody and there is no indication that the child’s interests were prejudiced in any way.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Fuchs-berg taking no part.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court, after hearing testimony from both parents and other witnesses and considering psychological reports submitted by a forensic team appointed by the court, concluded that it would be in the child’s best interests for custody to be awarded to the child’s father. On the record we find no basis for setting aside that determination.

The question as to whether additional inquiry by other experts would be helpful was essentially a matter within the discretion of the court and in this case it cannot be said that this discretion was not properly exercised. Nor did the court err in failing to appoint a Law Guardian sua sponte. There is no requirement that the court invariably appoint a Law Guardian for the child in every case where parents who are *945 unmarried, divorced or separated, seek a judicial determination of child custody and there is no indication that the child’s interests were prejudiced in any way.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Fuchs-berg taking no part.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 N.E.2d 1022, 47 N.Y.2d 943, 419 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-d-v-wendy-p-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack