FAMILY COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT PROPER HEARING
When the kid was some 15 months old, his mom was arrested and deported to Trinidad. After she made a request for telephone, video and in-person access, the Kings County Family Court granted everything but in-person access.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, had an issue with the denial, noting that while access determinations are left to the Family Court’s discretion, there must be a “sound and substantial basis in the record” for a denial, including a determination that the grant would work to the child’s detriment.
The AD2 thought the record, here, wasn't fully developed. It was of the view that the Family Court judge should have examined an array of issues, including the mother’s criminal history, the ability to “coordinate travel arrangements,” together with “an in camera interview of the child, particularly given the mother's testimony that the child's fear of visiting her in person was due to outside influence.” It felt that the youngster was “of such an age and maturity that his preferences [were] necessary to create a sufficient record to determine his best interests.”
Given the” improvident” exercise of the lower court’s discretion, the order was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.
(It would be improvident of us to further comment ….)
# # #
DECISION