The record supports the motion court's finding that the mother has not willfully interfered with the father's relationship with the child and that her continued custody of the child is otherwise in the child's best interests (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174). There was no need for a hearing since sufficient information to render an informed decision had been provided by the papers submitted on the instant motions, the papers submitted on prior motions for identical relief before another Justice, two prior extensive decisions by the other Justice delineating the parties' contentions, and the impressions gained by the motion court in an in camera interview of the child (see, Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755; Melnitzky v. Melnitzky, 278 A.D.2d 2, 2000 N Y App. Div. LEXIS 12680). The same evidence shows that there is no need for either a law guardian or forensic expert (see, Matter of Thompson v. Thompson, 267 A.D.2d 516, 519). Concerning visitation, the motion court's schedule comports with the parties' settlement agreement, whereas the father's proposals clearly do not, and, absent a showing of a material change of circumstances warranting major modifications of the settlement agreement, the schedule fixed by the motion court should not be disturbed.
However, the award of $17,500 in counsel fees to the mother was improper, the record being unclear as to the mother's ability to pay her attorney, and utterly devoid of evidence pertinent to the reasonable value of the services that were rendered or how the motion court arrived at the $17,500 figure. Accordingly, we vacate the award of counsel fees and remand for a hearing thereon. We also modify to vacate the prohibition against the father's orally communicating with the mother. The written correspondence relied on by the mother does not indicate the kind of abuse or threat as might warrant such a restraint.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.