Anonymous v. Anonymous
| Decision Date | 19 April 1966 |
| Citation | 269 N.Y.S.2d 500,50 Misc.2d 43 |
| Parties | Neglect Petition of ANONYMOUS, Petitioner, v. ANONYMOUS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Family Court |
Dorothy M. Hannigan, New York City, for petitioner.
Russo & Sapio, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Petitioner herein seeks continuation of an order of visitation permitting her to visit with three grandchildren on a weekly basis.
The tragic events leading up to the current situation commenced with the mental breakdown of petitioner's son some four years ago and his ultimate commitment to the Creedmoor State Hospital. Petitioner is laboring under the mistaken notion that her daughter-in-law, the respondent herein, was somehow responsible for her son's plight. Under the guise of trying to help her minor grandchildren, petitioner undertook a course of policing the respondent. This led to her filing of two neglect petitions in this court in two years. In each case the petitioner alleged that the children were without proper supervision in that the respondent permitted male companions to remain in her apartment until the early hours of the morning.
At the first dispositional hearing in 1963 the children were paroled to the respondent mother and the petitioner grandmother was granted visitation rights on Saturdays from 9:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. and for a two week summer vacation. Judgment was thereafter suspended on the respondent upon the court's finding that the home situation then appeared to be in good order.
In the second of the two neglect petitions, petitioner also alleged that her 10 year old granddaughter was molested by her 11 year old brother and other boys. There is no evidence in the interviews with the children the medical and psychological examinations which would tend to support the allegations pertaining to a sexual abuse of the granddaughter.
After dispositional hearing by this court which included a review of the investigative reports submitted by the Department of Probation and the psychological studies made by psychiatrists attached to the Bureau of Clinical Services of the Family Court, the children were paroled to the custody of the respondent mother. The court also placed the respondent on probation to June 17, 1966 in accordance with authority granted under sections 352 and 353 of the Family Court Act and rule 3.7 of the Rules of the Family Court. The parties were also referred to Catholic Charities or to an appropriate agency for family counseling in the hope that the family rift can somehow be mended if but for the best interests of the infant children. Decision was reserved on petitioner's application for visitation rights and to which the court now addresses itself.
Petitioner argues that she should be considered the General Guardian of her son who is now a mental incompetent and standing in his stead she is obliged to protect the minor children from the folly or immoral acts of the respondent.
Respondent on the other hand resists the application on two grounds: first, the respondent is the natural parent of the within infant children, has the prime, sole and exclusive right to the care and custody of her children and that such custody and care cannot be infringed upon or diminished, except for the gravest reasons adequately proven and established. In the instant case, the respondent argues the paternal grandmother has no right to visitation and that the Court does not have absolute or uncontrolled discretion to diminish the custody inherent in parenthood. Respondent relies upon People ex rel. Boulware v. Martens, 232 App.Div. 258, 249 N.Y.S. 600, affirmed 258 N.Y. 534, 180 N.E. 321.
The respondent further submits that the stability and harmony normally existing in her home becomes upset and tumultuous on the days that the children are constrained to visit with the petitioner.
Assuming arguendo that the petitioner's concern anent the welfare of her grandchildren compels her to 'police' her daughter-in-law, the court's decision in placing respondent on probation should suffice (Family Court Act, section 354). While on probation the respondent's behavior, as it may affect her children, will be under constant supervision. Committee Comments appearing on page 89, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, Volume 29A, Judiciary--Court Acts, Part 1 as follows:
The authority to entertain petitioner's application for visitation rights is not dependent on any statute but rests on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Ward
...rights. See, e.g., Mirto v. Bodine, 29 Conn.Sup. 510, 294 A.2d 336, 337 (1972) (best interests of the child); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 50 Misc.2d 43, 269 N.Y.S.2d 500, 503 (1966) (broad equitable powers of the court); Hawkins v. Hawkins, 102 Ill.App.3d 1037, 1039, 58 Ill.Dec. 620, 621, 430 N......
-
Larisa F. v. Michael S.
...of the child. See, e.g. E.R. v. D.T., 77 Misc.2d 242, 353 N.Y.S.2d 612 (Family Court, Genesee County, 1974); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 50 Misc.2d 43, 269 N.Y.S.2d 500 (Family Court, Queens County 1966). However, in addition, courts must be careful to protect and encourage reasonable visitatio......
-
Anonymous v. Anonymous
...with the Family Court to make any order in matters within its jurisdiction, including permission for visitation. Anonymous v. Anonymous, 50 Misc.2d 43, 269 N.Y.S.2d 500. Our Courts have come a long way from the common law which held that an illegitimate child was filius nullius, the child o......
-
Smith v. Smith
...to make any order in matters within its jurisdiction to permit and establish times and rules of visitation (Anonymous v. Anonymous, 50 Misc.2d 43, 269 N.Y.S.2d 500). Prerequisite to the entry of such order is proper jurisdiction which under section 447(a) of the Family Court Act can only be......