Opinion
2013-04-17
In the Matter of Robert J. CASTAGNOLA, respondent, v. Laurie J. MULLER, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1). In the Matter of Laurie J. Muller, appellant, v. Robert J. Castagnola, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
Adam E. Small, Merrick, N.Y., for appellant. Cheryl L. Kreger, Jericho, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Adam E. Small, Merrick, N.Y., for appellant. Cheryl L. Kreger, Jericho, N.Y., attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In two related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (LoPresti, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 17, 2012, as, after a hearing, in effect, granted her application to suspend visitation between the father and the child only to the extent of directing supervised, therapeutic visitation between the father and the child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
When making a determination with respect to visitation, the most important factor is the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Taylor v. Taylor, 77 A.D.3d 669, 669, 908 N.Y.S.2d 269;Matter of Balgley v. Cohen, 73 A.D.3d 1038, 900 N.Y.S.2d 659;Matter of Shockome v. Shockome, 53 A.D.3d 618, 619, 862 N.Y.S.2d 378). Since “[a] noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation,” the “ denial of that right must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child” ( Matter of Sinnott–Turner v. Kolba, 60 A.D.3d 774, 775, 875 N.Y.S.2d 512). Contrary to the mother's contention, the determination of the Family Court that directing therapeutic visitation between the father and the child was in the child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Thompson v. Yu–Thompson, 41 A.D.3d 487, 488, 837 N.Y.S.2d 313). Thus, we decline to disturb it.