Matter of Schroll v. WrightMatter of Schroll v. Wright
Peters, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Hall, J.), entered September 19, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to
Respondent Angelique Wright (hereinafter the mother) is the mother of the subject child (born in 2005), and petitioner (hereinafter the grandmother) is the child‘s maternal grandmother. Pursuant to a stipulated order entered in May 2013, the mother and the grandmother share joint legal custody of the child, with the grandmother having primary physical custody and the mother receiving parenting time. In April 2014, the grandmother commenced this proceeding seeking to have the mother‘s visitation supervised or suspended based on al- legations
Family Court erred in modifying the mother‘s visitation without conducting a hearing. It is settled that “modification of a
Here, the mother objected to the hair follicle test and specifically requested a hearing on the allegations concerning her continued drug use. Further, while Family Court made a fleeting reference during one of the court appearances to the mother‘s history of drug use, in the absence of the test results or any record evidence of recent drug use by the mother, there was not enough information before the court to permit it to determine whether unsupervised visitation would be inimical to the child‘s welfare or whether supervised visitation was otherwise necessary to ensure the child‘s best interests (see Matter of Fish v Fish, 112 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2013]). As the restriction of the mother‘s visitation was based upon mere allegations, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted for a hearing on the petition (see Matter of Moore v Palmatier, 115 AD3d at 1071; Matter of Spencer v Spencer, 85 AD3d at 1245; Matter of Twiss v Brennan, 82 AD3d at 1535; compare Matter of Mary GG. v Alicia GG., 106 AD3d 1410, 1411-1412 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 863 [2013]). In light of this determination, we need not address the mother‘s remaining arguments.
Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Saratoga County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court‘s decision and, pending said proceedings, the terms of the September 19, 2014 order shall remain in effect on a temporary basis.