IN RE: PAUL C.T. (2025)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2023, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner grandfather's application for in-person and virtual visits with the subject child but permitted him to send her letters and gifts until such time when respondent mother determined the child was ready for visitation with the grandfather, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that in-person and virtual visits between the child and the paternal grandfather were not in the child's best interests (see Matter of Albertina C. v. Administration for Children's Servs, 125 A.D.3d 483, 484, 4 N.Y.S.3d 167 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 906, 2015 WL 3620128 [2015]).  This finding, based on the court's credibility determinations, is entitled to great deference (see Matter of Trina L. v. Michelene M., 227 A.D.3d 472, 474, 211 N.Y.S.3d 38 [1st Dept. 2024]).

The record established that historically the grandfather's contact with the child was largely limited to visits during the summer and holidays.  However, even that limited contact ceased sometime in late 2016 when the father cut off contact with the paternal grandparents.  The grandparents’ renewed involvement in the child's life led to a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding against the parents, during which the child was removed from their care.  Notably, the case against the mother was later dismissed with prejudice.

The court properly concluded that the issues in the case went beyond the animosity between the parties, and that the mother's objection to the visits was not solely based on the existing acrimony (see Matter of Sands v. Sands, 174 A.D.3d 628, 630, 101 N.Y.S.3d 877 [2d Dept. 2019];  Matter of Gloria R. v. Alfred R., 209 A.D.2d 179, 179, 618 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 1994], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 85 N.Y.2d 882, 626 N.Y.S.2d 752, 650 N.E.2d 410 [1995]).  The record established that the grandfather and the entire paternal family were highly critical and dismissive of the mother's parenting.  For example, immediately after the November 2019 visits took place, North Carolina Child Protective Services received a report alleging that the child was educationally neglected.  The exhaustive testimony about the tumultuous visitation exchanges, which culminated in the paternal grandparents sending their attorney to confront the mother in the child's presence, raised well-founded concerns about the grandparents’ ability to act in a manner consistent with the child's best interests and highlighted their lack of concern for the child's emotional well-being.  Moreover, neither grandparent's testimony demonstrated any empathy or sensitivity to the fact that a child, who had recently lost a parent and was removed from her mother due to their involvement, might be reluctant to see them.