| Matter of Taylor v Fry |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00387 [47 AD3d 1130] |
| January 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jeffrey Taylor, Appellant, v Tasha Fry,Respondent. (And Two Other Related Proceedings.) |
—[*1] Christopher A. Pogson, Law Guardian, Binghamton.
Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), enteredJanuary 6, 2006, which, among other things, granted respondent's application, in threeproceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 6 and 8, for custody of the parties' child.
Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of achild born in 2004. Following cross petitions seeking custody and visitation and a family offensepetition filed by the mother against the father, the parties stipulated that custody would be withthe mother and a fact-finding hearing ensued in January 2006 on the issues of visitation and thealleged family offense. Thereafter, Family Court awarded sole custody of the child to the motherand supervised visitation to the father, under the direct supervision of the maternal grandmother,and found that the father had committed a family offense justifying the issuance of an order ofprotection. The father appeals, challenging only Family Court's finding that supervised visitationwas necessary and that the supervision be by the maternal grandmother, rather than the father'ssister.
We affirm. The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter "left toFamily Court's sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound andsubstantial basis in the record to support it" (Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1155[*2][2006]; seeMatter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2003]). On appeal, the father does notchallenge Family Court's finding that he is guilty of a family offense involving harassing actstoward the mother or the propriety of the resulting order of protection against him. Further, uponour review of the record, we find ample evidence to support Family Court's findings that thefather was guilty of past acts of domestic violence against the mother, that he has two priorconvictions involving domestic violence against the mother of his other child and that he failedto cooperate with previous efforts by the local family and children's agency to schedulesupervised visitation up until the point that visitation was terminated and, thus, that it is in thechild's best interests that visitation be supervised (see Matter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3dat 1228; Matter of Simpson v Simrell, 296 AD2d 621, 621-622 [2002]; Matter ofKryvanis v Kruty, 288 AD2d 771, 772 [2001]).
Likewise, we discern no abuse of discretion in Family Court's decision to select the maternalgrandmother to provide supervision for visitation instead of the father's sister. Although the courtfound both women would be suitable choices, it based its decision on record evidence that thefamily obligations of the father's sister left her less available to supervise visitation on a routinebasis and, therefore, the maternal grandmother—who expressed unqualified willingness tosupervise visitation—would be the better choice to further the best interests of the child(cf. Matter of Anaya v Hundley, 12AD3d 594, 595 [2004]). In rendering its decision, the court also noted the maternalgrandmother's willingness to allow the father's sister to participate in the visitation therebypermitting her the opportunity to establish a relationship with the child. The father's protestationthat it would be easier for his sister to supervise visitation because her home is closer is aninsufficient basis upon which to overturn Family Court's discretionary determination.Significantly, he has not alleged facts which would support the conclusion that the location of thevisitation would—as opposed to being a mere inconvenience—result in suchhardship as it would preclude him from visiting the child (cf. Matter of Stewart vStewart, 222 AD2d 895, 896 [1995]).
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Kane and Malone, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.