| Matter of Balgley v Cohen |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04374 [73 AD3d 1038] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lynn F. Balgley, Respondent, v Robert J.Cohen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth Lyle Bunting, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order ofthe Family Court, Westchester County (Malone, J.), dated February 17, 2009, which, after ahearing, in effect, granted the mother's petition to suspend the father's visitation with the subjectchild, and further directed that the father's visitation shall remain suspended until the child'streating therapist recommends that visitation should be reinstated.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraphthereof directing "that [the father's] access to David shall remain suspended until David's treatingtherapist recommends that [the father's] access should be reinstated"; as so modified, the order isaffirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When making a determination with respect to visitation, the most important factor is the bestinterests of the child (see Matter ofShockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 618, 619 [2008]). A visitation order may be modifiedupon a showing of sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order such thatmodification is warranted to further the child's best interests (id.). Since "[a]noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation," the "denial of that right must be basedon substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child" (Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60AD3d 774, 775 [2009]). Here, the Family Court's determination that it was in the bestinterests of the subject child to suspend the father's visitation with the child has a sound andsubstantial basis in the record and, thus, we decline to disturb it (id. at 776; see Matter of Thompson vYu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]).
However, "the Family Court improperly delegated the authority to determine future issuesinvolving visitation to a therapist" (Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d at 776;see Matter of Held v Gomez, 35AD3d 608 [2006]). Accordingly, we modify the order to the extent indicated.
We note that suspending the father's visitation with the subject child in no way "precludesthe [father] from seeking a modification as to [his] visitation rights at some later date should thetotality of the circumstances indicate that to do so would be in the best interests of the child" (Matter of Panetta v Ruddy, 18 AD3d662, 663 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.