Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: CANDICE ROUSSEAU, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. LISA A. KRAFT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THOMAS A. DEUSCHLE, LAW GUARDIAN, WEST SENECA, FOR BRANDON W.
DOMINIC PAUL CANDINO, LAW GUARDIAN, BUFFALO, FOR JAISON W.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a hearing on the petition.
Memorandum: With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, we agree with respondent mother that Family Court erred in failing to conduct a hearing before granting the petition in which petitioner grandmother sought to modify an order setting forth a visitation schedule with the mother's children. “ ‘Determinations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing, not on the basis of conflicting allegations' “ (Matter of Kenneth M. v. Monique M., 48 AD3d 1174, 1174-1175). “Based upon the record before us, we are unable to determine whether the court ‘possessed sufficient information to render an informed determination that was consistent with the child[ren]'s best interests' “ (Matter of Hopkins v. Gelia, 56 AD3d 1286). We therefore reverse the order in appeal No. 1 and remit the matter to Family Court for a hearing on the petition.
With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, the mother has not raised any issues concerning that order in her brief on appeal, and we thus deem any such issues abandoned (see Matter of Sportello v. Sportello [appeal No. 1], 70 AD3d 1446; Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 09-01163
Decided: April 30, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)