SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN “IN CAMERA INTERVIEW”
Upon the parents advising a Queens County Family Court judge that they had reached a settlement which allowed a father to have “supervised” and “therapeutic” access to his kid, modifiable at a later time (subject to the parties’ agreement), the child’s attorney objected to the arrangement, citing the youngster desire to not have any contact with the dad.
Notwithstanding that information, the judge approved the agreement.
When the kid later appealed, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that while a youngster lacks “full party status,” and doesn’t have standing to “veto” a settlement reached by the parents, the child’s wishes should be accorded “great weight, particularly where their age and maturity would make their input particularly meaningful.”
In this instance, the AD2 was of the view the Family Court judge erred because it neglected to conduct an “in camera interview” of the child “regarding [the latter’s] fear and hatred of the father, his expressed concerns about the father's lifestyle, and his strong wishes not to have parental access with the father.”
Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Family Court for a special hearing on the child’s parental-access concerns, particularly his “fears of having contact with the father.”
Think the judge will finally hear that?
# # #
DECISION