In re Adam H.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: "The denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent constitutes such a drastic remedy that it should be ordered only when there are compelling reasons, and there must be substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the children’s welfare” (Vasile v Vasile,
There is no merit to respondent’s contention that the court erred in punishing him for contempt of court by denying him visitation. Although respondent was found in contempt, determination of an appropriate sanction was deferred by the court. The order terminating visitation was based upon the court’s finding that continued visitation was inadvisable.
The court erred, however, in making any future application for visitation by respondent subject to psychological evaluation and counseling. Although such conditions could properly be imposed with respect to a pending petition (see, Family Ct Act § 251), the court lacked the authority to impose such a precondition with respect to a future petition (see, Jones v Jones,
We, therefore, modify the third ordering paragraph of Family Court’s order by striking those portions directing a psychological evaluation and counseling as preconditions to a future petition for visitation. (Appeal from Order of Allegany County Family Court, Feeman, Jr., J.—Visitation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.