In the Matter of Carmela II. v Juan II. et al.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law dispute over grandparent visitation under Family Ct Act article 6 [custody and visitation proceedings].
Family Court granted the paternal grandmother court-ordered visitation consisting of one weekly dinner visit and one monthly overnight visit with the children.
The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order setting unsupervised visitation on that specific schedule and remitted for Family Court to create a new visitation plan.
Although the record supported the finding that visitation with the grandmother was in the children's best interests, nearly two years had passed without contact because the order had been stayed pending appeal under Family Ct Act § 1114 (b) [stay pending appeal]. The appellate court held that Family Court should reconsider the type, duration, location and progression of visitation, and it also directed appointment of a new attorney for the children because the prior attorney did not appear to have met with the children or advocated their position as required by 22 NYCRR 7.2 (d) [rule governing duties of the attorney for the children].
Background
The parents, Juan II. and Kali II., are married and have three children born in 2016, 2019 and 2022. The paternal grandmother, Carmela II., lived next door to them for the children's entire lives and had a close relationship with the children, including frequent babysitting, overnights, dinners, holidays and vacations. In November 2024, the relationship between the grandmother and the parents deteriorated and the parents cut off her contact with the children. In March 2025, the grandmother filed this visitation proceeding seeking regular daytime and overnight access.
Lower Court Decision
After a two-day fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that visitation with the grandmother was in the children's best interests and awarded her one weekly dinner visit and one monthly overnight visit. The court credited evidence that she had a loving, nurturing relationship with the children and was willing to follow the parents' wishes despite conflict with them.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the parents failed to preserve any challenge to the grandmother's standing because they did not raise it in Family Court. On the merits, the court agreed that the grandmother proved visitation was in the children's best interests, noting the strong preexisting bond and that the parents' objections largely involved complaints that she was overbearing, gave too many sweets and toys, and a prior gun-brandishing incident not involving the children. However, the appellate court modified the order by reversing the specific award of unsupervised weekly dinner and monthly overnight visits and remitting for a new visitation schedule in light of the long interruption in contact. It also directed appointment of a new attorney for the children to meet with them and present their positions.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a fit parent's wishes are entitled to deference, but parental animosity toward a grandparent does not by itself defeat visitation where the evidence shows a meaningful, nurturing relationship and visitation serves the children's best interests. It also underscores preservation rules on standing arguments and emphasizes that an attorney for the children must actually meet with the children and communicate their positions to the court.
A grandparent with a strong, loving history with grandchildren may obtain visitation over parental objection, but if contact has been interrupted for a long period, the court should tailor or phase in visitation carefully rather than simply imposing the original unsupervised schedule.