AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

IN THE MATTER OF RAMAZAN U., JR., (ANONYMOUS) PRESENTMENT AGENCY, respondent; BELKIS P. (ANONYMOUS), appellant. (PROCEEDING NO. 1) IN THE MATTER OF BELKIS P. (ANONYMOUS), appellant, v. RAMAZAN U. (ANONYMOUS), respondent. (PROCEEDING NO. 2) IN THE MATTER OF RAMAZAN U. (ANONYMOUS), respondent,

DECISION ORDER ON MOTION

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The finding of the Family Court, after conducting a complete evidentiary hearing, that the mother had emotionally neglected the subject child was based on a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3; Matter of Krewsean S., 273 A.D.2d 393, 394; Matter of Barbara S., 244 A.D.2d 556; Matter of Tevina W., 237 A.D.2d 452; Matter of Danielle M., 151 A.D.2d 240, 243). The documented efforts of the mother to interfere with the visitation of the noncustodial parent and to alienate the child from his father are sufficient to support a finding of neglect (see Matter of Hartsough v. Hartsough, 270 A.D.2d 349; Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603).

The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Matter of Ebert v. Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700, 702; Matter of Canazon v. Canazon, 215 A.D.2d 652; Alanna M. v. Duncan M., 204 A.D.2d 409). The determination of the hearing court, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra at 174; Matter of Darlene T., 28 N.Y.2d 391, 395; Bunim v. Bunim, 298 N.Y. 391, 393; Matter of Morse v. Mignone, 240 A.D.2d 583; Canazon v. Canazon, supra). There is no basis to alter the court's award of custody to the father in this case (see Matter of Hartsough v. Hartsough, supra; Matter of Morse v. Mignone, supra; Canazon v. Canazon, supra at 653).

Supervised visitation is not considered a deprivation of meaningful access to the child (see Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, 232 A.D.2d 417, 418; Matter of Carl J. B. v. Dorothy T., 186 A.D.2d 736, 738; Lightbourne v. Lightbourne, 179 A.D.2d 562), and the provision of the dispositional order directing supervised visitation is supported by the record.

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF RAMAZAN U
(Mar 10, 2003)