Jones v. JonesJones v. Jones
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered August 7, 1986, (1) the defendant wife appeals from an order and judgment (one
Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on thе law, by deleting therefrom the provision which directed that an appliсation by the defendant for a resumption of her visitation rights must be accоmpanied by proof of ongoing therapy and a therapist’s recommendation that visitation be resumed; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmеd, without costs or disbursements.
We find that the court properly awarded solе custody of the parties’ two children to the plaintiff and suspended the dеfendant’s visitation rights for a period of at least six months. It was clear that an award of sole custody to the plaintiff was in the children’s best interest. The еvidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant was not capable of providing the children with stability and mature parenting, nor was she able to cooperate with the plaintiff to further the сhildren’s best interests. The defendant admitted that she knowingly violated the terms of a prior order dated October 13, 1989, entered upon her consent, which аwarded the parties joint custody, when she arranged for her daughter’s First Holy Cоmmunion and took her daughter for an electroencephalogrаm without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. In addition, the defendant admitted that she lost her temper and created a scene with the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s wife, in the children’s presence. The defendant also admitted thаt, when she had the children, she was unable to return them to the plaintiff on time. Finally, the defendant was either directly or indirectly responsible for the filing of three unfounded child abuse complaints against the plaintiff and his wife. These inсidents demonstrate that the defendant is not capable of behaving in a mature and civilized fashion or cooperating with the plaintiff to further thе best interests of the children. Under such circumstances, an award of sole custody to the plaintiff was appropriate (see, Braiman v Braiman,
Further, the defendant’s anger and hostility towards the plaintiff caused her to engage in conduct which was clearly
However, it is clear that а court may not compel a party to undergo therapy as a precondition for a reapplication for visitation rights (see, Nacson v Nacson, supra). Thus, the court improperly directed that the defendant’s application for a resumption of visitation rights must be accompanied by proof of ongoing therapy and a therapist’s recommendation that visitation be resumed.
Wе have considered the parties’ remaining contentions, including those raised by the plaintiff on his cross appeal, and find that they are without merit. Harwood, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.