From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pettiford-Brown v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 2007
42 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-05866.

July 24, 2007.

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered May 2, 2006, which suspended his visitation with the subject child until further order of the court and, in effect, held in abeyance the mother's petition for full custody and to limit the father's visitation.

Althea F. Richardson, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Deborah D. Clegg, New Rochelle, N.Y., for respondent.

Gregory A. Salant, White Plains, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Florio, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.


Ordered that on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted ( see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for an evidentiary hearing before a different judge for a determination of the mother's petition for full custody and to limit the father's visitation.

"'A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child'" ( Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak), 10 AD3d 366, 366, quoting Matter of Bradley v Wright), 260 AD2d 477, 477; see Paul G v Donna G), 175 AD2d 236, 237). Generally, visitation should be determined after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Rivera v Administration for Children's Servs.), 13 AD3d 636, 637). A hearing is not necessary, however, where the court possesses adequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the child's best interest ( see Matter of Horn v Zullo), 6 AD3d 536).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information necessary to issue an order suspending the father's visitation rights ( see generally Janousek v Janousek), 108 AD2d 782). Accordingly, the Family Court erred in suspending the father's visitation with the subject child until further order of the court and, in effect, holding in abeyance the mother's petition for full custody and to limit the father's visitation. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for an evidentiary hearing before a different Judge to determine the mother's petition.


Summaries of

Pettiford-Brown v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 2007
42 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Pettiford-Brown v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARISA PETTIFORD-BROWN, Respondent, v. PATRICLEE BROWN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 24, 2007

Citations

42 A.D.3d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6237
840 N.Y.S.2d 118

Citing Cases

Lew v. Lew

“[A] noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it…

Franklin v. Richey

The father now seeks, in effect, to compel the mother to produce the child at the prison where he is…