In re Isaac Q., 53 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Isaac Q., 53 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …is a matter left to family court's sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it at p. 731 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to family court's sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it at p. 731 ✓
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Tristen S. (Thomas S.) (nyappdiv, 2023-05-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tristen S. (Thomas S.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Further, "[t]he determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court's sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it" ( Matter of Isaac Q. , 53 AD3d 731, 731 [3d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Kaleb U. [Heather V.-Ryan U.] , 77 AD3d 1097, 1100 [3d Dept 2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tristen S. (Thomas S.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Further, "[t]he determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court's sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it" ( Matter of Isaac Q. , 53 AD3d 731, 731 [3d Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Kaleb U. [Heather V.-Ryan U.] , 77 AD3d 1097, 1100 [3d Dept 2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spoor v. Carney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Whether parenting time should be supervised or unsupervised “is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it” (Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spoor v. Carney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Whether parenting time should be supervised or unsupervised “is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it” (Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Walter TT. v. Chemung County Department of Social Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Given this evidence and despite the attorney for the children’s position that the father be permitted unsupervised visitation, we find no basis to disturb Family Court’s conclusion that limiting the father to supervised visitation is in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Keen v Stephens, 114 AD3d 1029, 1031 [2014]; Matter of Kaleb U. [Heather V.—Ryan U. ], 77 AD3d 1097, 1100 [2010]; Matter of Brandon DD. [Jessica EE.], 75 AD3d 815, 816-817 [2010]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 732 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Ashlyn Q.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
For the same reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s determination that, in order to protect Ashlyn from the potential threat of future abuse or neglect, it was in her best interests to deny visitation to the fiancé, who is not Ashlyn’s biological father (see Matter of Victoria XX. [Thomas XX.], 110 AD3d 1168 , 1171-1172 [2013]; Matter of Kathleen OO., 232 AD2d 784, 786 [1996]), and to limit the mother to supervised visitation (see Matter of Raychelle J. v Kendell K., 121 AD3d 1206, 1207-1208 [2014]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 732 [2008]; Matter of Pettengill v Ki…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Ashlyn Q.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
For the same reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s determination that, in order to protect Ashlyn from the potential threat of future abuse or neglect, it was in her best interests to deny visitation to the fiancé, who is not Ashlyn’s biological father (see Matter of Victoria XX. [Thomas XX.], 110 AD3d 1168 , 1171-1172 [2013]; Matter of Kathleen OO., 232 AD2d 784, 786 [1996]), and to limit the mother to supervised visitation (see Matter of Raychelle J. v Kendell K., 121 AD3d 1206, 1207-1208 [2014]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 732 [2008]; Matter of Pettengill v Ki…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Kobe D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In light of these facts, and the complete absence of testimony as to any inappropriate behavior by respondent during the visitation, Family Court’s restriction of the supervised visitation plan and refusal to grant any unsupervised visitation is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; compare Matter of Brandon DD. [Jessica EE.], 75 AD3d 815, 816-817 [2010]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731-732 [2008]; see also Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 13 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Kobe D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In light of these facts, and the complete absence of testimony as to any inappropriate behavior by respondent during the visitation, Family Court’s restriction of the supervised visitation plan and refusal to grant any unsupervised visitation is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; compare Matter of Brandon DD. [Jessica EE.], 75 AD3d 815, 816-817 [2010]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731-732 [2008]; see also Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 13 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Kaleb U.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
A “dispositional order must reflect a resolution consistent with the best interests of the child[ ] after consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances” (Matter of Alaina E., 33 AD3d 1084, 1087 [2006]; see Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 976 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]), and “[t]he determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it” (Matter of Taylor v Fry, 47 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2008] [internal quotation m…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wormuth v. Mathis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Family Court, having heard the testimony and observed the witnesses, did not abuse its discretion in requiring supervision by a child welfare agency as opposed to the father’s relatives (see Matter of Taylor v Fry, 47 AD3d 1130, 1132 [2008]; see also Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Isaac Q. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent Wendy Q., Richard Q.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 3, 2008.
53 A.D.3d 731
Carpinello.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Carpinello, J.

Appeal from three orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered July 24, 2007, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10-A, to continue the placement of respondent’s children.

Relevant background concerning the instant neglect proceeding may be found in prior decisions of this Court and will not be repeated at length (see Matter of Wendy Q. v Richard Q., 36 AD3d 1000 [2007]; Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974 [2007], Iv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]). Briefly, respondent and Richard Q. (hereinafter the father) are the parents of four children. The three youngest children are the subject of this neglect proceeding commenced against respondent only. They have been in foster care since February 2006. Since May 2006, the oldest son, who is not a subject of this proceeding, has resided with the father, who himself appears in this proceeding as an interested party. Following a July 2007 permanency hearing, Family Court continued the younger children’s placement with the local department of social services and modified the father’s visitation from unsupervised to supervised. The father now appeals. We affirm.

“The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion and it will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it” (Matter of Taylor v Fry, 47 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, the decision ordering supervised visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record promoting the younger children’s best interests (see e.g. Matter of Boulerice v Heaney, 45 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2007]; Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1155 [2006]; Matter of Peet v Parker, 23 AD3d 940,[*732] 941 [2005]; Matter of Sullivan County Dept. of Social Servs. v Richard C., 260 AD2d 680, 682 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958 [1999]). The record reveals that the father was not adequately supervising the children during visits or acknowledging and/or addressing serious problems which were taking place, despite intervention and parenting classes. Testimony revealed allegations that the oldest son sexually abused the youngest son during an unsupervised visit and urinated on the belongings of his sisters during other visits. One daughter was particularly anxious around the oldest son such that she would dig at her own skin. There was also evidence that the children were not receiving proper nutrition during unsupervised visits. These circumstances compel the conclusion that supervised visitation was required to safeguard the children’s emotional and physical well-being.

The parties’ remaining contention has been rendered academic.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.