CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2014

Shoshanah B. v. Lela G.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child therapy and visitation. The original order, entered on November 5, 2014, permitted the respondent (custodial parent) to enroll the parties' child in therapy and temporarily suspended the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The Appellate Division modified the order, affirming the respondent's right to enroll the child in therapy but vacating the suspension of the petitioner's Wednesday overnight visits. The court found that while the respondent acted appropriately in seeking therapy for the child due to emotional distress, the Family Court erred in modifying the visitation schedule without a proper hearing, as there was no showing of an immediate emergency. The ruling underscores the requirement for a hearing when modifying custody or visitation orders, even on a temporary basis.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsChild TherapyParental RightsCustody Agreement ModificationJudicial Hearing OfficerAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEmergency Order
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura A. K. v. Timothy M.

The case involved appeals by a father concerning two Family Court orders related to child custody and visitation in Orange County. The first order, dated March 23, 1992, denied his petition for joint custody, while the second, dated February 25, 1993, limited his visitation rights to supervised Sunday afternoons. Additionally, a law guardian had cross-appealed the first order regarding the father's expanded visitation rights, but this cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed both Family Court orders, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount in custody proceedings. The court found that the parents' hostility and inability to cooperate, along with the mother being the primary caregiver, justified the sole custody award to the mother and the imposed visitation limitations.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsFamily LawAppellate ReviewJoint CustodySole CustodyBest Interest of the ChildParental AntagonismSupervised VisitationDomestic Relations Law
References
13
Case No. 02-13-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2013

in the Interest of P.J., Jr., a Child

Mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) regarding her son, P.J. Jr. Father filed the SAPCR petition after Mother and Father separated, alleging family violence and requesting supervised visitation, child support, and injunctive relief. Mother defaulted by not filing an answer or appearing at the initial hearing. The trial court granted Father immediate possession of Junior and ordered supervised visitation for Mother and child support. Mother's motion for new trial was denied because she failed to show that her failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent and did not set up a meritorious defense. The appellate court also addressed Mother’s arguments regarding Father's standing to establish paternity and the scope of relief granted, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.

Family LawChild CustodyParental RightsDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialPaternityDue ProcessAppellate ReviewFamily ViolenceSupervised Visitation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1991

Barry v. Chefales

The paternal grandmother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated February 19, 1991. This order had vacated a previous visitation order and denied her petition for visitation with her granddaughter. The Family Court's decision was supported by findings from a social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both recommending against visitation, along with testimony from the respondent and her second husband. Sufficient evidence indicated that continued visitation would detrimentally impact the child’s emotional and mental well-being. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court’s decision, finding adequate support in the record for the exercise of discretion.

Child visitationGrandparent visitation rightsFamily Court ActDomestic Relations LawBest interest of the childAppellate reviewDiscretionary rulingChild welfareSocial worker reportPsychological evaluation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braswell v. Braswell

The case concerns an appeal by a father from a Family Court order that modified his visitation schedule with his son. The mother had initiated the modification proceeding, citing the child's entry into kindergarten and the disruptive nature of the existing schedule, as well as the child's diagnosis of acute stress disorder linked to visits with his father. The Family Court denied the father's adjournment request and, in his absence, reduced his visitation to three visits annually. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the adjournment or the modification of the visitation, as a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests were demonstrated.

Child visitationVisitation modificationFamily Court ActAppellate reviewAdjournment denialChild custodyBest interests of childAcute stress disorderParenting timeChild welfare
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Ciccone v. Ciccone

In a visitation proceeding, the father appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which granted the mother’s petition for supervised visitation with their daughter. The Family Court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that despite the mother's history of mental health problems and a past admission of physically abusing an adult son, her condition had significantly improved through voluntary mental health treatment and she showed remorse. The decision to award monthly supervised visits was supported by a court-appointed forensic psychologist, a social worker who supervised visits, and the attorney for the child. The Family Court also considered a finding of a family offense against the mother but determined it did not establish that supervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare, especially since experts reported the mother acted appropriately with the child during visits.

Visitation rightsFamily lawChild custodyParental rightsSupervised visitationMental healthParental fitnessBest interest of the childAppellate reviewEvidentiary basis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift v. Swift

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner-mother from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted the respondent-father unsupervised visitation rights with their two children. The petitioner alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, Sarah, by the respondent, leading to a temporary order for supervised visitation. Despite two reports to the State Child Abuse Hotline, which were deemed unfounded after investigation, the petitioner sought termination of visitation. The Family Court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof regarding the sexual abuse allegations, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings and its reasons for rejecting corroborating "validation evidence," noting concerns about the petitioner's influence, the social worker's inexperience, and the context of contested custody litigation.

Child VisitationSexual Abuse AllegationsCredibility FindingsHearsay CorroborationValidation EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court OrderParental HostilityChild Custody LitigationExpert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2011

Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K.

The Family Court, New York County, issued an order modifying a temporary visitation order to grant the petitioner unsupervised visitation with the parties' child. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs. The court proceeded without a plenary evidentiary hearing, citing numerous prior appearances, a December 2010 adjudication of family offenses by the petitioner against the respondent, and an existing five-year order of protection. The court considered testimony and reports from a forensic social worker who had observed approximately 80 supervised visits and proposed a plan for gradual unsupervised visitation. The determination that unsupervised visitation served the child's best interests was supported by the social worker's findings of positive interactions and bonding between the petitioner and child. Despite the petitioner's history of alcohol and substance abuse, court-ordered drug tests were negative. The court's plan mitigated risks by mandating exchanges at a family services agency, which had successfully prevented violent incidents for nearly a year.

Visitation RightsChild's Best InterestsFamily Court OrderDomestic Violence HistorySubstance Abuse TestingForensic Social Worker TestimonyUnsupervised VisitationOrder of ProtectionParental BondingEvidentiary Hearing
References
2
Case No. 01-22-00964-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2023

In the Interest of S.C.M., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

B.C. (Father) appeals the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his child, S.C.M. (Sarah). Father challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the predicate acts of endangering environment and conduct, as well as the finding that termination was in the child's best interest. The record shows Father had a felony aggravated robbery conviction and violated his community supervision by using illegal drugs and failing to report, leading to an eight-year prison sentence. Both parents had unstable housing and were involved in domestic violence. Father failed to comply with his court-ordered service plan, including requirements for stable housing, employment, drug testing, and visits. S.C.M. had been in foster care for over a year and was securely bonded to her foster mother. The appellate court affirmed the termination, finding sufficient evidence for the predicate acts of endangerment, constructive abandonment, and failure to complete the service plan, and that termination was in S.C.M.'s best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDomestic ViolenceParental IncarcerationFelony ConvictionProbation ViolationDrug AbuseUnstable Living ConditionsService Plan Non-ComplianceConstructive Abandonment
References
41
Case No. E2001-00055-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2001

K.S.O.H. v. J.W.B., Jr. In Re: Adoption of a Male Child

Mother and Stepfather filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father, alleging abandonment. The Juvenile Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to establish abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was not in the child's best interests. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Juvenile Court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioners did not prove a willful failure to visit or support, particularly given evidence that the mother had thwarted the father's attempts to see the child. The appellate court applied prior statutory law for the definition of 'abandonment' as the current statute had been found unconstitutional in part.

Parental rights terminationAdoptionChild abandonmentJuvenile court appealAppellate reviewClear and convincing evidenceChild supportVisitation rightsCredibility assessmentBest interests of the child
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,706 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational