| Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07774 [77 AD3d 964] |
| October 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Matthew Wiebke, Respondent, v QuondaWiebke, Appellant. In the Matter of Matthew Wiebke, Respondent, v Quonda Wiebke,Appellant. |
—[*1] Karen M. Caggiano, Shirley, N.Y., for respondent. Karyn E. Bell, Riverhead, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limitedby her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Luft, J.), dated June5, 2009, as, after a hearing, in effect, granted the father's petition to enforce the visitationprovisions of a prior order of the same court (Spinner, J.), dated December 3, 2004, directed theresumption of unsupervised visitation, and adjudicated her in civil contempt for violating thevisitation provisions of the prior order.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of visitation issues is entrusted to the sound discretion of the hearingcourt, and must be based upon the best interests of the children (see Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74AD3d 1337 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]; Matter of McFarland v Smith, 53AD3d 500 [2008]; Matter ofThompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]). The hearing court'sdetermination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74AD3d 1337 [2010]; Matter ofMcFarland v Smith, 53 AD3d 500 [2008]; Matter of Thompson vYu-Thompson, 41 AD3d at 488). Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court'sdetermination that it is in the best interests of the children to have liberal unsupervised visitationwith their father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Accordingly, theFamily Court properly, in effect, granted the father's petition to enforce the visitation provisionsin a prior order and directed the resumption of unsupervised visitation.
Furthermore, the hearing record establishes that the mother willfully violated the order datedDecember 3, 2004, by refusing to allow the father to have visitation with the children, thusprejudicing [*2]his visitation rights (see Matter of Jules v Corriette, 55AD3d 732 [2008]; Matter ofMunster v Munster, 17 AD3d 600 [2005]; Matter of Hoistion v Abrams, 287AD2d 629 [2001]; Matter of Barcham-Reichman v Reichman, 250 AD2d 609 [1998]; cf. Matter of Dorf v Alvalle, 76 AD3d629 [2010]). The Family Court thus properly adjudicated the mother in civil contempt.
Since the father did not appeal, his contention that the Family Court should have modifiedthe order dated December 3, 2004, by awarding him sole custody of the children is not properlybefore us (see Matter of Mary UU.[Michael UU.—Marie VV.], 70 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2010]; Day v Day,112 AD2d 972, 973 [1985]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.