Damon B. v. Amanda C.

6 Citing cases

  1. Henry CC. v. Antoinette DD.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    see Matter of Michael U. v Barbara U., 189 A.D.3d 1909, 1910 [3d Dept 2020]). "Because the best interests of a child generally lie with a healthy, meaningful relationship with both parents, parenting time with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in a child's best interests" (Matter of Jill Q. v James R., 185 A.D.3d at 1108 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], accord Matter of Damon B. v Amanda C., 195 A.D.3d 1107, 1108 [3d Dept 2021]). "[U]nless parenting time with the noncustodial parent would be detrimental to the child's welfare, Family Court is required to fashion a parenting time schedule that affords the noncustodial parent frequent and regular access to the child" (Matter of Jill Q. v James R., 185 A.D.3d at 1108; see Matter of Zaida DD. v Noel EE., 177 A.D.3d 1220, 1222 [3d Dept 2019]).

  2. Mary N. v. Scott M.

    218 A.D.3d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    "A parent seeking to modify an existing custody and parenting time order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis" (Matter of Damon B. v Amanda C., 195 A.D.3d 1107, 1108 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Jennifer VV. v Lawrence WW., 186 A.D.3d 946, 947-948 [3d Dept 2020]). The father contends that the mother failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances that would warrant modification of the prior order.

  3. Brenna EE. v. Andrew DD.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Having reviewed the record, we find that Family Court's determination that joint legal custody was untenable and that the mother should be the child's sole legal custodian, while permitting the father direct access to the child's records, is supported by a sound and substantial basis (see Matter of Steven U. v Alisha V., 209 A.D.3d 1184, 1186 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of David J. v Leeann K., 140 A.D.3d 1209, 1211 [3d Dept 2016]). Further, we see no reason to disturb the court's parenting schedule, which provides the father with regular and meaningful time with the child while minimizing the parties' contact (see Matter of Joseph II. v Brandy JJ., 210 A.D.3d 1315, 1321 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Damon B. v Amanda C., 195 A.D.3d 1107, 1110-1111 [3d Dept 2021]). In April 2022, the parties consented to an order which provided the father with some additional parenting time.

  4. Michael NN v. Robert OO

    210 A.D.3d 1326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    "Generally, the best interests of a child lie in having [a] healthy and meaningful relationship[ ] with ... [the] noncustodial parent" ( Matter of Carin R. v. Seth R., 196 A.D.3d 776, 777, 151 N.Y.S.3d 498 [3d Dept. 2021] [citations omitted]). However, Family Court has the discretion to impose supervised visitation if it determines "that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's safety because the parent is either unable or unwilling to discharge his or her parental responsibility properly" ( Matter of Christopher WW. v. Avonna XX., 202 A.D.3d at 1426, 164 N.Y.S.3d 278 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Damon B. v. Amanda C., 195 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 149 N.Y.S.3d 642 [3d Dept. 2021] ). "Ultimately, Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether supervised visitation is warranted, and its decision will only be disturbed by this Court when it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Michael U. v. Barbara U., 189 A.D.3d 1909, 1911, 138 N.Y.S.3d 279 [3d Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Christopher WW. v. Avonna XX., 202 A.D.3d at 1426, 164 N.Y.S.3d 278 ).

  5. Brett J. v. Julie K.

    209 A.D.3d 1141 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 16 times

    Concerning the father's allegations that the mother hurt the younger child, after reviewing the record and exhibits, we deem it appropriate to defer to Family Court's credibility determinations. Therefore, we find no reason to order that the mother's parenting time be supervised (see Matter of Damon B. v. Amanda C., 195 A.D.3d 1107, 1109–1111, 149 N.Y.S.3d 642 [3d Dept. 2021] ; compare Matter of Amanda YY. v. Faisal ZZ., 198 A.D.3d 1125, 1128, 157 N.Y.S.3d 114 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 908, 2022 WL 2911411 [2022], 190 N.E.3d 570 ).

  6. Nicole J. v. Joshua J.

    206 A.D.3d 1186 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 13 times

    "Generally, Family Court must fashion a parenting time schedule that accords the noncustodial parent frequent and regular access to the child[ ], unless there is evidence that frequent parenting time would be contrary to the child[ ]’s best interests" ( Matter ofNicole Y. v. Joshua X., 183 A.D.3d 996, 997, 123 N.Y.S.3d 266 [2020] ; see Matter ofAida B. v. Alfredo C., 114 A.D.3d 1046, 1049, 980 N.Y.S.2d 601 [2014] ). However, Family Court may order supervised parenting time if it determines that the "parent ‘is either unable or unwilling to discharge his or her parental responsibility properly’ " and that, therefore, unsupervised parenting time would be "detrimental to the child's safety" ( Matter ofTaylor v. Fry, 63 A.D.3d 1217, 1218–1219, 880 N.Y.S.2d 721 [2009], quoting Matter of Kathleen OO., 232 A.D.2d 784, 786, 649 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1996] ; see Matter ofDamon B. v. Amanda C., 195 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 149 N.Y.S.3d 642 [2021] ). The evidence established that, in addition to perpetrating acts of domestic violence against the mother, the father frequently became frustrated with the child and would yell and curse at her.