Opinion
2012-05-23
In the Matter of William WALKER, Jr., appellant, v. Sharisse N. DIAZ, respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for respondent.
Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for respondent.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Morgenstern, J.), dated June 7, 2010, which, sua sponte, suspended his visitation with the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), for further proceedings on the issue of visitation consistent with the child's best interest.
“ ‘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 Pettiford–Brown v. Brown, 42 A.D.3d 541, 542, 840 N.Y.S.2d 118, quoting Matter of Kachelhofer v. Wasiak, 10 A.D.3d 366, 366, 780 N.Y.S.2d 290). When adjudicating visitation issues, a court must determine the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Indig v. Indig, 90 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 934 N.Y.S.2d 843; Matter of Mohabir v. Singh, 78 A.D.3d 1056, 910 N.Y.S.2d 917; Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 73 A.D.3d 1069, 1069–1070, 899 N.Y.S.2d 893; Matter of Thompson v. Yu–Thompson, 41 A.D.3d 487, 488, 837 N.Y.S.2d 313).
Here, the Supreme Court failed to determine the best interests of the child before suspending the father's visitation with the child. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), for further proceedings on the issue of visitation consistent with the child's best interests.