IN RE: R. R. (2026)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Rosanna Mazzotta, Referee), entered September 16, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the father's petition seeking visitation with the subject child, with prejudice, and required that future petitions seeking visitation be brought by order to show cause setting forth a change in circumstances, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“The determination as to whether or not a court should award visitation to a noncustodial parent lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and must be based upon the best interests of the child” (Matter of Ronald C. v Sherry B., 144 AD3d 545, 546 [1st Dept 2016], lv dismissed 29 NY3d 965 [2017] ).  There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that visitation with the father would not be in the child's best interests (see Matter of D.P. v N.T., 183 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1078 [2020] );  Matter of Brandy V. v Michael P., 151 AD3d 618 [1st Dept 2017] ).

As a preliminary matter, we note that the Referee had presided over the matter for seven years, and her conclusions regarding the mother's credibility are entitled to great deference on appeal (see Matter of Hany A. v Eric A., 158 AD3d 545, 545 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 904 [2018] ).  The record shows that the supervised virtual visitations between the father and the child, while occasionally positive, appeared to devolve to the point that the father made the child increasingly uncomfortable.  More importantly, the father refused to take responsibility for the abuse of the child's mother, which had left her with permanent injuries, and which occurred in the child's presence.  Although in some circumstances supervised therapeutic visitation might have been helpful, the record does not reflect that, at this point, such visitation would be beneficial to the child, given the father's evident refusal to address his underlying issues and the reasons for the child's reluctance to see him (see Matter of Fekete–Markovits v Markovits, 140 AD3d 1061, 1063 [2d Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 904 [2017] ).

Moreover, the father's conduct during the trial, including his tardiness and outright failure to appear for a session despite being well-advised of the trial date, paired with his outbursts at the court and offensive and threatening conduct toward two of the assigned attorneys for the child, reflected his poor impulse control and parental judgment.  The court was entitled to take all of this into consideration in determining the child's best interests (see Matter of Caraballo v Colon, 9 AD3d 459, 460 [2d Dept 2004] ).

Finally, while the expressed wishes of a child are not determinative in a visitation case (see Matter of Ronald C., 144 AD3d at 547), the court properly considered the child's wishes, as she clearly articulated her opposition to visitation with the father during the in camera interview, which was consistent with the representations of the attorney for the child (see Matter of Melissa G. v John W., 143 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2016];  Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 73 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments, including that the child received ineffective assistance of counsel, and find them unavailing.