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: Rene MONTES, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Terina JOHNSON, Respondent–Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “and subject to periods of visitation with the Mother and the Father shall encourage [the child] to visit with her Mother,” and as modified the amended order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an amended order that, inter alia, granted petitioner father's petition to modify a prior custody order by awarding him primary physical custody of their daughter. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in failing to set a specific and definitive visitation schedule (see Matter of Shonyo v. Shonyo, 151 A.D.3d 1595, 1597–1598, 56 N.Y.S.3d 390 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 901, 2017 WL 4543499 [2017]; Gillis v. Gillis, 113 A.D.3d 816, 817, 979 N.Y.S.2d 387 [2d Dept. 2014]; Matter of Murray v. Parisella, 41 A.D.3d 902, 904, 836 N.Y.S.2d 740 [3d Dept. 2007] ). We therefore modify the amended order by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “and subject to periods of visitation with the Mother and the Father shall encourage [the child] to visit with her Mother,” and we remit the matter to Family Court to fashion a specific and definitive schedule for visitation between the mother and daughter. We have considered and rejected the mother's remaining contentions.
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: 669
Decided: June 08, 2018
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)