IN RE: Adam RHODIE (2009)

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lerner, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 30, 2008, as, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for custody of the subject child and failed to award him visitation.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

 Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of the father's application for forensic evaluations in connection with his custody petition was a provident exercise of discretion.   The Family Court possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision regarding custody consistent with the subject child's best interests (see Matter of Johnson v. Williams, 59 A.D.3d 445, 874 N.Y.S.2d 498;  Matter of B.G. v. A.M.O., 57 A.D.3d 246, 247, 869 N.Y.S.2d 38;  Matter of Salamone-Finchum v. McDevitt, 28 A.D.3d 670, 671, 816 N.Y.S.2d 105;  Matter of Fallon v. Fallon, 4 A.D.3d 426, 427, 771 N.Y.S.2d 381;  Kaplansky v. Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667, 668, 622 N.Y.S.2d 766).

 The Family Court delegated to the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) the authority to determine whether and when the father was entitled to visitation.   ACS determined that based on certain comments made by the father during the custody hearing, he was not entitled to any visitation.   The Family Court's delegation to ACS was improper, as “[t]he determination of visitation is entrusted to the court based upon the best interests of the children” (Matter of Juliane M., 23 A.D.3d 473, 473, 803 N.Y.S.2d 915;  see Matter of Rueckert v. Reilly, 282 A.D.2d 608, 609, 723 N.Y.S.2d 232;  Matter of Fisk v. Fisk, 274 A.D.2d 691, 693, 710 N.Y.S.2d 473).   We decline, however, to disturb the determination made here, as the record supports the conclusion that visitation by the father would not be in the subject child's best interests (see Matter of Vasquez v. Medina, 49 A.D.3d 547, 851 N.Y.S.2d 889;  Matter of Juliane M., 23 A.D.3d at 473, 803 N.Y.S.2d 915).

The father's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (cf. Dana-Sitzer v. Sitzer, 48 A.D.3d 354, 851 N.Y.S.2d 530;  Matter of Rudy v. Mazzetti, 5 A.D.3d 777, 778, 774 N.Y.S.2d 171) and, in any event, is without merit.