| Matter of Johnson v Williams |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00687 [59 AD3d 445] |
| February 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Timothy Johnson, Appellant, v GertrudeWilliams, Respondent. |
—[*1] Bahn Herzfeld & Multer, New York, N.Y. (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated October 5, 2007, which, after ahearing, denied his petition for visitation with the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence at the hearing amply supports the Family Court's findings that the father hadnot seen his son since he was an infant, concededly had no relationship with him, and neverprovided any financial support for him. Moreover, the father had not attempted to visit or contacthis son until he was nearly 10 years old, and the son did not wish to have a relationship with him.Although denial of a parent's right of visitation is a drastic remedy, under the circumstances, weagree with the Family Court that forcing the son to visit the father would be detrimental to theson's welfare (see Matter of Razo vLeyva, 3 AD3d 571 [2004]; Matter of Williams v Tillman, 289 AD2d 885[2001]; Matter of Cattell v Ahrem, 254 AD2d 356 [1998]). Contrary to the father'scontention, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his requestfor forensic evaluations (see Family Ct Act § 251). The Family Court had before itthe report of a court-ordered investigation by the Administration for Children's Services,conducted a full evidentiary hearing at which the father testified, and conducted an in camerainterview with the child. Therefore, it [*2]possessed sufficientinformation to render an informed decision consistent with child's best interests (see Matter of McCullough v Brown,21 AD3d 1349 [2005]; Matter of Bougor v Murray, 283 AD2d 695 [2001]). Skelos,J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.