DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the visitation schedule contained in the order dated March 2, 1993, is reinstated.
We agree with the father that the Family Court erred in conditioning unsupervised visits upon the father obtaining therapy. While the Family Court may order a parent or child to be examined by a psychiatrist and may consider the report before arriving at its judgment as to custody and/or visitation rights, the court has no power to compel a party to undergo therapy before considering awarding visitation to the party ( see, Matter of Paris v. Paris, 95 A.D.2d 857; Matter of Grado v. Grado, 44 A.D.2d 854).
To be meaningful, visitation must be frequent and regular ( Weiss v. Weiss, supra 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175; Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 938). Here, there was an insufficient showing that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's well-being ( see, Matter of Nancy M. v. Brian M., 227 A.D.2d 404; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650).
BRACKEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.