Matter of Vicente v Diaz
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Family law—modification of parental access (visitation) under Family Court Act article 6 [governs custody and parental access (visitation) proceedings in Family Court] and the propriety of supervised visitation and judicial non-delegation in scheduling and provider selection.
After a hearing, the Family Court required the father's visitation to be supervised by a mental health professional and reduced his access from weekly to biweekly, while effectively delegating to the parties the choice of the supervising professional and to that professional the scheduling.
The reduction from weekly to biweekly access and the delegation of selecting the mental health professional and setting the schedule.
The record provided a sound and substantial basis for requiring supervision due to a change in circumstances and best interests, but it did not support reducing the frequency of visits. Additionally, the court may not delegate judicial responsibility for selecting the supervisor and establishing the visitation schedule.
Background
The parties, parents of children born in 2013 and 2015, entered a so-ordered stipulation in 2017 granting the mother sole custody and the father unsupervised parental access. The mother later petitioned to modify, asserting changed circumstances warranting supervised visitation and reduced frequency.
Lower Court Decision
The Family Court found a change in circumstances, ordered that the father's access be supervised by a mental health professional, reduced visitation from weekly to biweekly, and effectively delegated to the parties the selection of the professional and to that professional the scheduling.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified on the law and facts: it affirmed the requirement of supervised visitation but deleted the reduction to biweekly access and the delegation of provider selection and scheduling. It remitted to the Family Court to promptly select a mental health professional and set an appropriate schedule. Interim provisions remain in effect, except the father shall have weekly supervised access (subject to availability or limitations).
Legal Significance
Clarifies that supervised visitation may be imposed upon a sound and substantial basis showing detriment from unsupervised access, but reductions in access frequency require specific record support. Reinforces the non-delegation principle in visitation matters: the court must designate the supervising professional and set the visitation schedule rather than delegating those judicial functions to the parties or a third-party professional. Confirms modification standards in proceedings under Family Court Act article 6 [governs custody and parental access (visitation) proceedings in Family Court].
Courts may require supervision of parental access when supported by the record, but cannot reduce visitation frequency without a sound basis and cannot delegate to parties or professionals the judicial tasks of selecting a supervisor and setting the visitation schedule.