TAIT v. James M. Hartmann, as Law Guardian, Appellant. (2007)

Appeal from that part of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court (Peckham, J.), entered September 29, 2006 in Delaware County, which granted defendant certain visitation with the parties' children, upon a decision of the court.

In the context of this matrimonial action, plaintiff was granted custody of the parties' four daughters pursuant to a June 2005 order and defendant (hereinafter the father) was awarded limited visitation, namely, three hours on Monday and Wednesday evenings and phone contact on Sunday evening.¹  This order directed the father to attend a parenting and/or anger management class and further specified that he could reopen the trial on the issue of custody and visitation thereafter.   After the father completed a parenting class, he sought increased visitation.   In particular, he wanted overnight visitation on the weekends.   Following a fact-finding hearing and a Lincoln hearing with each daughter, the father was granted an additional two hours during the week and eight hours of visitation one Saturday a month.   The Law Guardian appeals, objecting to this increase.

 The Law Guardian argues that Supreme Court erred in granting the father increased visitation because he failed to gain insight into anger and parenting issues despite the completion of a parenting class and because the children continue to display fear and discomfort in his presence.   Upon our review of the record, including the transcript of the Lincoln hearing, we affirm the modest increase of visitation.   As in custody matters, the standard to be applied in visitation disputes is the best interests of the children (see e.g. Matter of Laware v. Baldwin, 42 A.D.3d 696, 839 N.Y.S.2d 618 [2007];  Matter of Larry v. O'Neill, 307 A.D.2d 410, 411, 761 N.Y.S.2d 736 [2003];  Matter of Mix v. Gray, 265 A.D.2d 692, 693, 696 N.Y.S.2d 308 [1999] ).   Here, we are satisfied that the modest increase in visitation permits the desirable end of more meaningful interaction between the children and their father (see Matter of Maziejka v. Fennelly, 3 A.D.3d 748, 749, 770 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2004];  Matter of Effner v. Scott, 194 A.D.2d 890, 891, 599 N.Y.S.2d 151 [1993] ) and recognizes that the best interests of children generally lie with a meaningful relationship with both parents (see e.g. Matter of Fish v. Manning, 300 A.D.2d 932, 934, 753 N.Y.S.2d 164 [2002];  Matter of Jordan v. Jordan, 288 A.D.2d 709, 710, 732 N.Y.S.2d 478 [2001] ).   To be sure, nothing in the record raises concern about the safety or well-being of the children in the father's presence (see Matter of Laware v. Baldwin, 42 A.D.3d at 696, 839 N.Y.S.2d 618;  compare Matter of Simpson v. Simrell, 296 A.D.2d 621, 745 N.Y.S.2d 123 [2002];  Matter of Jordan v. Jordan, 288 A.D.2d at 710-711, 732 N.Y.S.2d 478).   In sum, we are unpersuaded that Supreme Court's decision to increase visitation lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Larry v. O'Neill, 307 A.D.2d at 411, 761 N.Y.S.2d 736), and discern no basis for disturbing its broad discretion in fashioning the subject schedule (see Murray v. Skiff-Murray, 289 A.D.2d 805, 807, 734 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2001];  Matter of La Scola v. Litz, 258 A.D.2d 792, 793, 685 N.Y.S.2d 862 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 809, 694 N.Y.S.2d 631, 716 N.E.2d 696 [1999];  Matter of Effner v. Scott, 194 A.D.2d at 891, 599 N.Y.S.2d 151).

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The parties eldest daughter was given the option of having visitation with the father.

CARPINELLO, J.

CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CREW III and KANE, JJ., concur.