Youngblood v. Amrhein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Youngblood v. Amrhein

216 A.D.2d 475, 628 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6410

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

DecidedJune 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 475 (Youngblood v. Amrhein) 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

Youngblood v. Amrhein, 216 A.D.2d 475, 628 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to obtain visitation, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Gage, J.), dated August 12,1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Before denying visitation to a noncustodial parent, the court should conduct a full inquiry into the matter, to determine if there are any potentially deleterious effects of such visits on the child (see, Matter of Wise v Del Toro, 122 AD2d 714). The record shows that the court did not conduct the required inquiry in the present situation. Although a fact-finding hearing [476]*476was held, only the petitioner father and the respondent mother testified. Neither expert testimony nor evaluations of the possible impact on the son by the proposed visitation were introduced at the hearing. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for appropriate evaluations and studies before a determination on visitation is made. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to obtain visitation, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Gage, J.), dated August 12,1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Before denying visitation to a noncustodial parent, the court should conduct a full inquiry into the matter, to determine if there are any potentially deleterious effects of such visits on the child (see, Matter of Wise v Del Toro, 122 AD2d 714). The record shows that the court did not conduct the required inquiry in the present situation. Although a fact-finding hearing [476]*476was held, only the petitioner father and the respondent mother testified. Neither expert testimony nor evaluations of the possible impact on the son by the proposed visitation were introduced at the hearing. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for appropriate evaluations and studies before a determination on visitation is made. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 475, 628 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngblood-v-amrhein-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack