Opinion
February 26, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.).
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The mother argues, inter alia, that the court erred in not awarding her custody of her minor child and in limiting her to two weeks of supervised visitation per year; one week in the United States, the mother's domicile, and one week in Switzerland, the father's domicile. However, because the mother withdrew her request for custody before the Family Court, a fact conceded several times during the various proceedings, her arguments concerning custody are not properly before this Court (see, Matter of Nicholas R.M., 112 A.D.2d 371). Further, we find the limited visitation granted to the mother to be in the best interests of the child (see, Janousek v. Janousek, 108 A.D.2d 782; Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775). Absent extraordinary circumstances where visitation would be detrimental to the child, a noncustodial parent should be granted frequent and regular visitation (see, Twersky v. Twersky, supra; Matter of Schack v Schack, 98 A.D.2d 802). Here, however, such extraordinary circumstances are present. The evidence adduced during the various proceedings revealed that the mother engaged in illicit drug use and that she physically abused the child. Furthermore, the child became upset and had nightmares after telephone conversations with the mother and was afraid and did not feel safe during visits with her. Indeed, during the first years of the child's life, when the mother had responsibility for the child, the child resided with an aunt. During this time, the mother had only sporadic contact with the child. Accordingly, the Family Court's order had a sound and substantial basis in the record and was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Darlene T., 28 N.Y.2d 391; McDonald v. McDonald, 216 A.D.2d 276; John v. John, 214 A.D.2d 536).
We have considered the mother's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.