William R. v. Josephine R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

William R. v. Josephine R.

178 A.D.2d 183, 577 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16075

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 183 (William R. v. Josephine 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

William R. v. Josephine R., 178 A.D.2d 183, 577 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Two orders, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered September 7, 1989, which terminated petitioner’s visitation rights and granted respondent an order of protection directing petitioner, among other things, to stay away from the child’s school and afterschool program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner father, subject to prior orders of protection, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 651 for visitation with his seven year old daughter. Respondent mother cross-moved to terminate all visitation and for an order of protection for both herself and the child. Both parties testified, as did a court appointed psychologist who had examined petitioner. The psychologist testified that petitioner may be suffering from either a delusional paranoid disorder, a paranoid personality disorder, or both. The court also considered written Mental Health Service reports containing diagnostic conclusions and recommendations based on interviews with the child and the parties. The court concluded that visitation would be inimical to the welfare of the child.

"The denial of visitation to a natural parent is a drastic remedy and should be done only where there are compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the children’s welfare” (Matter of Farrugia Children, 106 AD2d 293). Here, the expert evidence, coupled with the court’s assessment of the demeanor and testimony of the parties, provided a sufficient basis for the denial of visitation. While petitioner questioned the court’s failure to appoint counsel at an earlier proceeding, no appeal was then taken, and the record reveals that petitioner was given the opportunity to adjourn the case and obtain counsel. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Two orders, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered September 7, 1989, which terminated petitioner’s visitation rights and granted respondent an order of protection directing petitioner, among other things, to stay away from the child’s school and afterschool program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner father, subject to prior orders of protection, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 651 for visitation with his seven year old daughter. Respondent mother cross-moved to terminate all visitation and for an order of protection for both herself and the child. Both parties testified, as did a court appointed psychologist who had examined petitioner. The psychologist testified that petitioner may be suffering from either a delusional paranoid disorder, a paranoid personality disorder, or both. The court also considered written Mental Health Service reports containing diagnostic conclusions and recommendations based on interviews with the child and the parties. The court concluded that visitation would be inimical to the welfare of the child.

"The denial of visitation to a natural parent is a drastic remedy and should be done only where there are compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the children’s welfare” (Matter of Farrugia Children, 106 AD2d 293). Here, the expert evidence, coupled with the court’s assessment of the demeanor and testimony of the parties, provided a sufficient basis for the denial of visitation. While petitioner questioned the court’s failure to appoint counsel at an earlier proceeding, no appeal was then taken, and the record reveals that petitioner was given the opportunity to adjourn the case and obtain counsel. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 183, 577 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-r-v-josephine-r-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack