Opinion
16009.
10-29-2015
Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Jose F., respondent pro se.
Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Jose F., respondent pro se.
GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Opinion Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Referee), entered on or about September 24, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted, after a hearing, petitioner father's petition for overnight visitation with the parties' child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Referee's finding that it is in the child's best interest to award the father overnight visitation with the child, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Victor L. v. Darlene L., 251 A.D.2d 178, 178, 674 N.Y.S.2d 371 [1st Dept.1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 816, 683 N.Y.S.2d 760, 706 N.E.2d 748 [1998] ; see also Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). The 12–year–old child's disinclination towards overnight visits at the father's home is not determinative (see Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ), and the record supports the Referee's finding that respondent mother's negative attitude about overnight visits and her “enmeshed relationship” with the child are “major” causes of the child's anxiety and opposition (see id.; see also Matter of Susan A. v. Ibrahim A., 96 A.D.3d 439, 440, 945 N.Y.S.2d 688 [1st Dept.2012] ).Although a court-appointed psychologist testified that he could not recommend overnight visitation at the time he wrote his forensic report, the Referee properly discounted those recommendations, especially given the passage of time since the report was made, the fact that the child was in therapy and evidence that the child has a good relationship with the father (see Matter of Martin V. v. Karen Beth G., 305 A.D.2d 305, 306, 759 N.Y.S.2d 324 [1st Dept.2003] ).
We have considered the child's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.