| Matter of Walrad v Walrad |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04325 [63 AD3d 1227] |
| June 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Amber Walrad, Respondent, v Larry RobertWalrad, Appellant. |
—[*1] Maura Kennedy-Smith, Ithaca, for respondent. Susan B. McNeil, Law Guardian, Ithaca.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.),entered May 14, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to FamilyCt Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.
Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the parents of adaughter born in 1996. After the parties separated in 1998, Family Court issued an order grantingsole custody of the child to the mother and supervised visitation to the father. In 2007, themother commenced this proceeding to obtain an order terminating the father's visitation rights.Following fact-finding and Lincoln hearings, Family Court found a change incircumstances and determined that termination of all visitation and contact between the fatherand the child would be in the child's best interests. The father now appeals.
In reviewing a denial of visitation, we defer to Family Court's credibility determinations and,where there exists a sound and substantial basis in the record, we generally do not disturb thecourt's findings (see e.g. Matter of Jonesv McMore, 37 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2007]; Matter of Edward S. v Moon, 7 AD3d 834, 836 [2004]). Here,Family Court credited the mother's testimony that the father had engaged in supervised visitationon no more than four occasions and, thereafter, paid no child support and had no relationship orcontact with the child [*2]for more than eight years. The courtalso cited the father's extensive history of criminal activity, recurring incarceration and fourseparate indicated child protective reports as outlined in a report prepared by the TompkinsCounty Probation Department pursuant to a court order. Family Court further noted the child'sunderstandable reluctance to have any contact with the father after so many years of absencefrom her life. Thus, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's conclusionsthat the father had effectively abandoned the child for more than eight years and that futurevisitation of any kind would not be in the child's best interests (see Matter of Wise v Burks, 61 AD3d1058, 1058 [2009]; Matter ofMorelli v Tucker, 48 AD3d 919, 920 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 709 [2008]).
Finally, we find no merit in the father's remaining contention that Family Court's decisionsets forth insufficient factual findings.
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.