Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision reviews a Family Court order that denied a father's petition for parental access to his child. Applying the best interests of the child standard and deferring to the Family Court's factual findings, the appellate court affirmed the denial, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record that access would be detrimental to the child. The court concluded that absent extraordinary circumstances, parental access privileges cannot override the child's well-being.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court's denial of parental access was supported by a sound and substantial basis and therefore should be affirmed.
Holdings
- The Family Court's determination that parental access would be detrimental to the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record; the order is affirmed.
Key quotations
“[T]he Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy in matters of custody and [parental access], with the paramount concern being the best interests of the child.”
“Absent extraordinary circumstances, where [parental access] would be detrimental to the child's well‑being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable [parental access] privileges.”
Factual background
James Dickerson, the noncustodial father, sought parental access to his child. The Family Court found that such access would be detrimental to the child's well‑being and denied the petition. Dickerson appealed that determination.
Procedural history
The father appealed the Family Court's order dated May 1, 2023, which denied his petition for certain parental access with the child.