IN RE: L.R. (2026)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Erin E. Browne, Ref.), entered on or about December 4, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondent father's request to keep his out-of-state address confidential, and limited the subject child's visitation with the father to visits in New York until such time as the father disclosed his out-of-state address to petitioner mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court Act § 154–b (2)(a) authorizes the court, on its own motion or upon the motion of any party or the child's attorney, to permit the party or the child to keep his or her address confidential from an adverse party if the court finds that disclosure of the address or other identifying information would pose an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a party or the child.  Issuance of such a confidentiality order is beyond a court's discretion if “the record is devoid of any determination as to whether disclosure of the address would pose an unreasonable risk” (Matter of Monet O. v Leroy L.B., 249 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2026] ).  Here, the father's testimony concerning the alleged threats was largely based on his own speculation and interpretation of events.  He offered no evidence establishing that these incidents were attributable to the mother or otherwise demonstrated a connection between the incidents and any threat to his safety.  Contrary to the father's contention, the mere fact that his allegations were uncontradicted did not require the court to credit them or find that disclosure of his address would pose an unreasonable risk to his safety.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in fashioning the parental access schedule, which is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Emiko C. v Christopher P., 192 AD3d 627, 628 [1st Dept 2021] ).  The record provided ample support for the court to require that the father exercise his parenting time in New York unless he disclosed his Nevada address.  The father testified that he did not pay rent or a mortgage for the Nevada property where he resided, did not own a car, and was unemployed.  Notwithstanding his decision to relocate to Nevada, he took the position that the mother should bear the costs associated with the child's travel to and from his parenting time.  Under these circumstances, Family Court acted within its discretion in conditioning out-of-state parenting time upon disclosure of the father's Nevada address, while continuing to afford him parenting time in New York and liberal phone/FaceTime contact.