Simpson v. FinniganSimpson v. Finnigan
—In a proceeding for visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered December 10, 1991, which, inter alia, directed (1) that he have no visitation with his child until the child reaches the age of majority, and (2) that before any visitation could occur after the child reaches the age of majority, "the child must have a therapist state unequivocally that it is not detrimental for the child to visit with the father at * * * whatever facility he may be incarcerated at”.
We agree with the appellant that the court erred by directing that the child have a therapist state that visitation with the appellant would not be detrimental to the child before any visitation could occur after the child reached the age of majority. Once a child is over 18 years old, the age of majority, the child is no longer subject to an order directing visitation (see, Family Ct Act §§ 119, 651; Matter of Eric L. v Dorothy L.,
However, we find that the determination of the Family Court that visitation would not be in the child’s best interests is supported by the evidence. Although "[i]t cannot be said that the fact of a parent’s incarceration, standing alone, makes visitation of that parent’s child inappropriate” (Matter of Wise v Del Toro,