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: TRISTAN R., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Daniel R., Respondent–Appellant, v. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner, Mercy First, Petitioner–Respondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Keith E. Brown, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2021, which granted petitioner foster care agency's motion to modify a prior visitation order to authorize agency supervised visitations only, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's determination that agency supervised visits would serve the best interests of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (Linda R. v. Ari Z., 71 A.D.3d 465, 466, 895 N.Y.S.2d 412 [1st Dept. 2010]). The requisite evidentiary basis exists for Family Court's finding that unsupervised visitation would have a negative impact on the child's well-being, namely that the father lacks sufficient insight on how to appropriately discipline the child who had significant special needs, and that the father has problems controlling his anger (see Matter of Frank M. v. Donna W., 44 A.D.3d 495, 844 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 2007]). To the extent the court's determination turned almost entirely on assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and particularly on the assessment of the character and temperament of the father, its findings “must be accorded the greatest respect” (Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337 [1975]; see also Matter of Elissa A. v. Samuel B., 123 A.D.3d 638, 639, 999 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept. 2014]).
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: 16421
Decided: October 13, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)