IN RE: ROBERT S. (2023)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park. J.), entered on or about September 9, 2022, which, after a hearing, granted respondent mother sole physical and legal custody of the subject child with therapeutic supervised visits to the father, and granted petitioner father independent access to all school, medical, and extracurricular activity reports from the child's providers, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of deleting the provision of the order granting the father independent access to all school, medical, and extracurricular activity reports from the child's providers, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in suspending the forensic evaluation because it had ample information upon which to reach a decision after a full fact-finding hearing (see Penny B. v. Gary S., 61 A.D.3d 589, 591, 878 N.Y.S.2d 307 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 705, 2009 WL 2924252 [2009]).  The court conducted a trial spanning 14 dates, with both parties testifying and being subjected to cross-examination.  The father also called two additional witnesses.  Furthermore, the court conducted an in-camera interview with the child and admitted into evidence the child's medical records, mental health records, and reports regarding court-ordered supervised visits.  This case therefore does not present “sharp factual disputes” where a forensic report could be instrumental in determining the child's best interests (see Matter of Keyes v. Watson, 133 A.D.3d 757, 758, 21 N.Y.S.3d 263 [2d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 919, 2016 WL 699461 [2016]).

However, the courts have the power to limit a parent's independent access to a child's medical, academic, and extracurricular records if it would contravene the child's best interests (see Matter of Gonzalez v. Hunter, 137 A.D.3d 1339, 1342, 26 N.Y.S.3d 625 [3d Dept. 2016], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 27 N.Y.3d 1061, 35 N.Y.S.3d 294, 54 N.E.3d 1165 [2016];  Matter of Sassower–Berlin v. Berlin, 58 A.D.3d 635, 636–637, 871 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2d Dept. 2009];  Matter of Flamio v. Flower, 46 A.D.3d 1265, 1265, 848 N.Y.S.2d 439 [3d Dept. 2007]).  Under the facts of this case, it is not in the child's best interests for his father to have independent access to his records, as the father has had only a limited and sporadic relationship with the child, who adamantly opposes the father's access to the records.  In addition, a limitation on the father's access to the child's records would not deprive him of meaningful access to the child, as he was awarded supervised therapeutic visits (see Matter of Arcenia K. v. Lamiek C., 144 A.D.3d 610, 42 N.Y.S.3d 124 [1st Dept. 2016]).