| Matter of Myles M. v Pei-Fong K. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01758 [93 AD3d 474] |
| March 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Myles M., Respondent, v Pei-Fong K.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Louise Belulovich, New York, for respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Monica Schulman, Ref.), entered on or aboutMarch 28, 2011, which modified a temporary order of visitation to grant petitioner unsupervisedvisitation with the parties' child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined the matter of visitation without a plenary evidentiary hearing(see e.g. Matter of David T., 268 AD2d 309 [2000]). It took judicial notice of the parties'many appearances before the court during the past year, the December 2010 adjudication thatpetitioner had committed several family offenses against respondent, and the five-year order ofprotection issued against him in her favor. It also heard the testimony of a forensic social workerwho had observed some 80 supervised visits between petitioner and the child during the courseof a year, and considered his reports on those visits and his proposed plan for gradually includingunsupervised visitation in petitioner's visitation schedule with the child.
The determination that unsupervised visitation with petitioner is in the child's best interestshas a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495 [2007]). Thesocial worker reported that the visits he observed between petitioner and the child wereoverwhelmingly positive, that petitioner and the child had bonded, and that petitioner was aloving and capable parent. Although petitioner has a history of alcohol and substance abuse, hesubmitted to court-ordered drug testing, and the results were negative. Moreover, the evidencedemonstrates that the child was at risk only when she was present during the incidents ofdomestic violence by petitioner against respondent, while the parties were still in a relationship.The plan structured by the court, in reliance on the expertise of the social worker and the familyservices agency, minimized that risk by mandating that exchanges be made at the [*2]agency's office to avoid contact between the parties. Indeed, theparties had been making exchanges at the agency's office for nearly a year, without a singleviolent episode. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.