Opinion
15821, 15820.
10-08-2015
In re WILLIAM G., Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant, v. SALINE G., Respondent–Appellant–Respondent.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for respondent-appellant. Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Eva D. Stein of counsel), attorney for the children.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for respondent-appellant.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Eva D. Stein of counsel), attorney for the children.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Opinion Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ruben A. Martino, J.), entered on or about September 25, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a fact-finding hearing, granted the father's petition for visitation with his children to the extent of awarding an annual visitation at the Southport Correctional Facility or any other facility where he was incarcerated that is “within the same proximity” as Southport, on condition that he pay the mother $200 towards the cost of the visit within 90 days before it is held, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court's decision to allow the father visitation, but to limit visitation to one time per year, has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court properly took into consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the children's position, as expressed through their attorney, as well as the burden and cost involved in the lengthy trip from Bronx County to an upstate facility, in determining that an annual in-person visit with the father was in the children's best interests (see Matter of Granger v. Misercola, 21 N.Y.3d 86, 90, 967 N.Y.S.2d 872, 990 N.E.2d 110 [2013] ; Matter of Garraway v. Laforet, 68 A.D.3d 1192, 1193–1194, 889 N.Y.S.2d 768 [3rd Dept.2009] ; Matter of Lewis v. Lowney, 296 A.D.2d 624, 624–625, 745 N.Y.S.2d 122 [3rd Dept.2002] ). The fact that the mother objects to having to make the trip is not a reason to deny the father visitation (see Matter of Kadio v. Volino, 126 A.D.3d 1253, 1255, 4 N.Y.S.3d 766 [3rd Dept.2015] ).
The request of the attorney for the children that the geographic proximity requirement of the order be clarified, as well as the father's concerns about lack of communication, can best be addressed in the context of a modification petition (see Matter of Lapham v. Senecal, 125 A.D.3d 1210, 1211, 4 N.Y.S.3d 384 [3rd Dept.2015] ).