Opinion
12400 Dkt. No. V-2952/18 V-25821/17 Case No. 2019–04609
11-17-2020
In re KHALIA R.R., Petitioner–Respondent, v. EVANS D., Respondent–Appellant.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant. The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, PLLC, New York (Salihah R. Denman of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, PLLC, New York (Salihah R. Denman of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jacob K. Maeroff, Referee), entered on or about October 4, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, limited respondent father's visitation with the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that respondent should have a series of unsupervised day visits with the child before overnight visits could begin has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Carmen G. v. Rogelio D., 100 A.D.3d 568, 568, 955 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept. 2012] ). The referee properly considered the age of the child, the amount of time she had spent with respondent, the evaluation reports by Comprehensive Family Services, respondent's relocation out of state, and his limited availability to visit the child in the state due to his recent enlistment in the Army. Although respondent demonstrated that he wants to be a responsible caregiver, the record shows that he did not have sufficient insight into caring for an infant or child. Contrary to respondent's contention, the visitation schedule set by the court, which includes unsupervised day visits with an opportunity to obtain overnight visits and to increase the number of consecutive visits with time, will allow him to develop a meaningful and nurturing relationship with the child (see id. ).
No hearing on visitation was necessary, as the referee possessed sufficient uncontested information to render an informed determination consistent with the best interests of the child (see Matter of Chaim N. [Angela N.], 103 A.D.3d 728, 729, 959 N.Y.S.2d 715 [2d Dept. 2013] ). Further, the record does not support respondent's contention that the referee was biased against him.