From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tito G. v. Thelma G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1992
187 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 23, 1992

Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Pearce, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision which granted the appellant supervised visitation contingent upon his enrollment in a program for psychiatric treatment; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination as to the father's entitlement to visitation with his children.

Contrary to the father's argument, we find no reason to disturb the Family Court's determination which permitted custody of the two minor children to remain with the mother. It is well-settled that an award of custody is a matter of discretion for the hearing court and its decision is entitled to great weight (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173; Matter of Diane L. v Richard L., 151 A.D.2d 760). The record indicates that the father is not employed. He presently lives with one other person, and has been living with various family members for varying lengths of time without a concrete plan for independent living. Furthermore, a court psychologist noted that the father suffers from prominent paranoid feelings of mistreatment, persecution, and resentfulness. In addition, the psychologist indicated that the father's attitude was suggestive of an underlying major mental disorder. Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly permitted the children to remain with the mother.

However, the court erred in granting supervised visitation to the father contingent upon his enrollment in a program for psychiatric treatment. We note that 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 in a custody proceeding, the court has no power to compel a party to undergo therapy as a condition for awarding visitation to that party (see, Nacson v Nacson, 166 A.D.2d 510; Matter of Paris v Paris, 95 A.D.2d 857; Matter of Grado v Grado, 44 A.D.2d 854). Lawrence, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tito G. v. Thelma G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1992
187 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Tito G. v. Thelma G.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TITO G., Appellant, v. THELMA G., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 41

Citing Cases

Zafran v. Zafran

Since the daughter's interests, and not just those of the father, are at stake, the father's refusal to…

Zafran v. Zafran

We also disagree with the father's contention that the order had the effect of denying him all access to his…