IN RE: Cathyann BADAL (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lisa Aschkenasy, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 12, 2024.  The order, after a hearing, denied that branch of the mother's petition which was for in-person parental access with the parties' child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 2019, the mother filed a petition, inter alia, seeking in-person parental access with the parties' child in Trinidad and Tobago.  In a prior appeal, this Court reversed so much of an order dated November 29, 2021, as denied that branch of the mother's petition which was for in-person parental access with the child and remitted the matter for further proceedings on that branch of the petition (see Matter of Badal v. Wilkinson, 213 A.D.3d 926, 183 N.Y.S.3d 567).  Following an in camera interview of the child and a reopened hearing, in an order dated January 12, 2024, the Family Court denied that branch of the mother's petition which was for in-person parental access with the child.  The mother appeals.

When determining issues of parental access, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Matter of Wright v. Stewart, 131 A.D.3d 1256, 1256, 16 N.Y.S.3d 860).  The determination of parental access is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Family Court and such determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Badal v. Wilkinson, 213 A.D.3d at 926, 183 N.Y.S.3d 567;  Matter of Fekete–Markovits v. Markovits, 140 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 35 N.Y.S.3d 177).  Moreover, the denial of in-person parental access should only be invoked when it has been demonstrated that such parental access would be detrimental to the child (see Matter of Lupo v. Rainsford, 162 A.D.3d 1032, 1033, 80 N.Y.S.3d 140).  Here, the court's determination to deny the mother in-person parental access with the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record.

The mother's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.