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: MATTHEW J. ROSKWITALSKI, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. CATHERINE D. FLEMING, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR ANTONIA F., KIRA F. AND ELIZHA F.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the conditions imposed on the resumption of visitation and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that suspended her visitation with the three children in the custody of petitioner, the children's maternal grandfather, and directed her to engage in mental health counseling “to allow for future access to these children when deemed appropriate by the children's counselor.” Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that the determination of Family Court to suspend visitation with all three children has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Hameed v. Alatawaneh, 19 AD3d 1135, 1135–1136; Murek v. Murek [appeal No. 2], 292 A.D.2d 839, 840). In determining that visitation with the mother would be detrimental to the youngest child, the court properly considered the deleterious effects of such visitation on the two older children (see Matter of Thomas v. Thomas, 35 AD3d 868, 869; Matter of Herrera v. O'Neill, 20 AD3d 422, 423).
The court erred, however, in directing the mother to engage in mental health counseling as a condition of visitation and in delegating its authority to the children's counselor to determine when a resumption of visitation would be appropriate (see Hameed, 19 AD3d at 1136). We therefore modify the order accordingly.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 12–01090
Decided: April 26, 2013
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)