Opinion
7740
11-29-2018
In re JOAQUIN C., Petitioner–Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE I.-C., Respondent–Respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Law Office of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the child.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Law Office of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for the child.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about November 1, 2017, which, after a hearing, denied the petition to enforce a visitation order providing for unsupervised visitation, and instead provided for supervised visitation with the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The testimony, medical records, and reports submitted to the court provide a sound and substantial evidentiary basis for Family Court's determination that it was not in the best interests of the subject child to have unsupervised visitation with the father. The record also supports a finding that a change in circumstances warranted a modification of the visitation order to provide for only supervised visitation (see Matter of Wilson v. McGlinchey, 2 N.Y.3d 375, 380–381, 779 N.Y.S.2d 159, 811 N.E.2d 526 [2004] ; Matter of Luis F. v. Dayhana D., 109 A.D.3d 731, 971 N.Y.S.2d 292 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The evidence showed that, although the father was engaged in treatment and had obtained housing, he continued to have difficulty controlling himself and had lost his temper with the child during an unsupervised visit. In light of his history of violence and the previous finding of neglect ( Matter of Angelina M. [Joaquin C.], 135 A.D.3d 651, 24 N.Y.S.3d 603 [1st Dept. 2016] ), limiting the father to supervised visitation is in the child's best interests (see Matter of James K.T. v. Laverne W., 154 A.D.3d 471, 62 N.Y.S.3d 111 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Frank M. v. Donna W., 44 A.D.3d 495, 495–496, 844 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Contrary to the father's argument, the court was not bound to enforce the visitation agreement, since the child's best interests are paramount (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ).