Dennison v. Short

• Decision Date: 11 July 1996
• Citation: Dennison v. Short, 645 N.Y.S.2d 170, 229 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Parties: In the Matter of Steven M. DENNISON, Appellant, v. Valerie L. SHORT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 170

645 N.Y.S.2d 170

229 A.D.2d 676

In the Matter of Steven M. DENNISON, Appellant, v. Valerie L. SHORT, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

July 11, 1996.

Katherine Chason, Ithaca, for appellant.

Tavelli & Seldin (Elizabeth A. Corey, of counsel), Ithaca, for respondent.

Lorraine A. Seager, Law Guardian, Ithaca, for Corey Dennison.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

CREW, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.), entered February 7, 1995, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to modify a prior order of visitation.

Petitioner and respondent have one child, Corey (born in 1991). By order entered March 18, 1992, Family Court awarded the parties joint legal custody of Corey, with physical custody to respondent and reasonable visitation to petitioner. Difficulties thereafter developed between the parties, and in May 1994 petitioner sought the establishment of a specific visitation schedule. ¹ As questions were raised regarding the appropriateness of allowing petitioner to have continued visitation with the child, Family Court, by interim order entered July 13, 1994, directed that petitioner have supervised visitation with Corey on alternate Sundays from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, petitioner thereafter commenced a proceeding in November 1994 seeking, inter alia, unsupervised visitation with his child and, one month later, commenced a separate proceeding based upon respondent's alleged failure to permit his scheduled visitations with Corey. The matters were joined for trial in January 1995, at the conclusion of which Family Court dismissed both petitions. This appeal by petitioner followed.

There must be a reversal. It is well settled that although a court may direct a party and his or her child to seek counseling as a component of the court's custody or visitation order (see, Matter of Jones v. Jones, 190 A.D.2d 1076, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1004), "Family Court does not have the authority to order that a party undergo counseling or therapy before visitation will be allowed" (Matter of Sweet v. Passno, 206 A.D.2d 639, 640, 614 N.Y.S.2d 611; see, Nacson v. Nacson, 166 A.D.2d 510, 511, 560 N.Y.S.2d 792; Matter of Paris v. Paris, 95 A.D.2d 857, 858, 464 N.Y.S.2d 221). Family Court did precisely that here by ordering that "no visitation [shall] be allowed between petitioner * * * and the...