Lincoln hearing in New York

2025Nor did petitioner request a Lincoln hearing, so any argument that the court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition without one is also unpreserved for our review ( see Matter of Francisco A. v Amarilis V. , 198 AD3d 405, 406 [1st Dept 2021]; see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln , 24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]).

2025Nor did petitioner request a Lincoln hearing, so any argument that the court abused its discretion by dismissing the petition without one is also unpreserved for our review ( see Matter of Francisco A. v Amarilis V. , 198 AD3d 405, 406 [1st Dept 2021]; see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln , 24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]).

2021"The determination of whether to hold a Lincoln hearing lies within Family Court's discretion" and such a hearing will not be conducted if it will have a "potential negative impact on the child" ( Matter of DeRuzzio v Ruggles , 88 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2011] [internal citation omitted]; see Matter of Jessica B. v Robert B. , 104 AD3d 1077 , 1078 [2013]).

2021"The determination of whether to hold a Lincoln hearing lies within Family Court's discretion" and such a hearing will not be conducted if it will have a "potential negative impact on the child" ( Matter of DeRuzzio v Ruggles , 88 AD3d 1091, 1091-1092 [2011] [internal citation omitted]; see Matter of Jessica B. v Robert B. , 104 AD3d 1077 , 1078 [2013]).

2023While the determination of whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing lies within Family Court's discretion, it is indeed the preferred method for ascertaining the child's wishes ( see Matter of [*2]Derek KK. v Jennifer KK. , 196 AD3d 765, 768 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Yeager v Yeager , 110 AD3d 1207, 1209 [3d Dept 2013]).

2023While the determination of whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing lies within Family Court's discretion, it is indeed the preferred method for ascertaining the child's wishes ( see Matter of [*2]Derek KK. v Jennifer KK. , 196 AD3d 765, 768 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Yeager v Yeager , 110 AD3d 1207, 1209 [3d Dept 2013]).

2014Without the benefit of the information to be obtained from a Lincoln hearing, there is insufficient evidence here concerning the children’s relationship with the father to determine what, if any, modification to the prior order is in their best interests (see Matter of Yeager v Yeager, 110 AD3d 1207, 1209-1210 [2013]; Matter of Jessica B. v Robert B., 104 AD3d 1077 , 1078 [2013]; Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1199 [2009]; Spain v Spain, 130 AD2d 806, 808 [1987]).

2014Without the benefit of the information to be obtained from a Lincoln hearing, there is insufficient evidence here concerning the children’s relationship with the father to determine what, if any, modification to the prior order is in their best interests (see Matter of Yeager v Yeager, 110 AD3d 1207, 1209-1210 [2013]; Matter of Jessica B. v Robert B., 104 AD3d 1077 , 1078 [2013]; Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1199 [2009]; Spain v Spain, 130 AD2d 806, 808 [1987]).

2018That said, whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing rests in the discretion of Family Court ( see Matter of Walker v Tallman , 256 AD2d 1021, 1022 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 804 [1999]).

2018That said, whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing rests in the discretion of Family Court ( see Matter of Walker v Tallman , 256 AD2d 1021, 1022 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 804 [1999]).

2012In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in conducting a Lincoln hearing (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272-274 [1969]; Matter of Farnham v Farnham, 252 AD2d 675, 677 [1998]; cf. Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]), or in consider ing the child’s statements at the Lincoln hearing in determining her best interests (see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210 [1992]; see also Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1199 [2009]).

2012In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in conducting a Lincoln hearing (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272-274 [1969]; Matter of Farnham v Farnham, 252 AD2d 675, 677 [1998]; cf. Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]), or in consider ing the child’s statements at the Lincoln hearing in determining her best interests (see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210 [1992]; see also Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1199 [2009]).

2018Finally, the father failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a Lincoln hearing inasmuch as he did not request such a hearing ( see Matter of Greeley v Tucker , 150 AD3d 1646, 1647 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Thillman v Mayer , 85 AD3d 1624 , 1625 [4th Dept 2011]).

2018Finally, the father failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to conduct a Lincoln hearing inasmuch as he did not request such a hearing ( see Matter of Greeley v Tucker , 150 AD3d 1646, 1647 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Thillman v Mayer , 85 AD3d 1624 , 1625 [4th Dept 2011]).

2022Footnotes Footnote 1: Family Court ascertained the children's wishes at the Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Battin v Battin , 130 AD3d 1265 , 1266 n 2 [2015]).

2022Footnotes Footnote 1: Family Court ascertained the children's wishes at the Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Battin v Battin , 130 AD3d 1265 , 1266 n 2 [2015]).

2024We are also compelled to remind the court that the disclosure of any statement made by a child during a confidential Lincoln hearing is improper, regardless of how innocuous that statement may appear to be ( see Matter of Carter v Work , 100 AD3d 1557, 1558 [4th Dept 2012]; Matter of Spencer v Spencer , 85 AD3d 1244, 1246 [3d Dept 2011]).

2016As for the timing of the Lincoln hearing, we are mindful that a Lincoln hearing generally should be held at a point either during or at the conclusion of a fact-finding hearing, given that a recognized purpose of a Lincoln hearing "is to corroborate information acquired through testimonial or documentary evidence adduced during the fact-finding hearing" (Matter of Spencer v Spencer, 85 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2011] [internal quotation marks and -5- 520703 citation omitted]; see Matter of Rush v Roscoe, 99 AD3d 1053, 1055 [2012]).

2016This protection is achieved by sealing the transcript of the in camera Lincoln hearing” (Matter of Sellen v Wright, 229 AD2d 680, 681-682 [1996] [citation omitted]).

2016This protection is achieved by sealing the transcript of the in camera Lincoln hearing” (Matter of Sellen v Wright, 229 AD2d 680, 681-682 [1996] [citation omitted]).

2025Given the absence in the record of the basis for the child's anxiety surrounding parenting time with the father, as well as the mother's request for one, we find that the court erred by failing to conduct a Lincoln hearing without any further discussion or an assessment, on the record, that a Lincoln hearing " 'may do more harm than good' " ( Matter of Mary Ellen H. v Joseph H. , 193 AD3d at 1277, quoting Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d 1193, 1195 [3d Dept 2016]; compare Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d at 1195).

2025Given the absence in the record of the basis for the child's anxiety surrounding parenting time with the father, as well as the mother's request for one, we find that the court erred by failing to conduct a Lincoln hearing without any further discussion or an assessment, on the record, that a Lincoln hearing " 'may do more harm than good' " ( Matter of Mary Ellen H. v Joseph H. , 193 AD3d at 1277, quoting Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d 1193, 1195 [3d Dept 2016]; compare Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d at 1195).

2024To the extent that the mother faults Family Court for failing to conduct a Lincoln hearing, this issue is unpreserved given the absence of any request for Family Court to conduct such hearing ( see Matter of Janeen MM. v Jean-Philippe NN. , 183 AD3d 1029, 1031 [3d Dept 2020], lv dismissed 35 NY3d 1079 [2020]; Matter of Gallo v Gallo , 138 AD3d 1189, 1191 [3d Dept 2016]).

2024To the extent that the mother faults Family Court for failing to conduct a Lincoln hearing, this issue is unpreserved given the absence of any request for Family Court to conduct such hearing ( see Matter of Janeen MM. v Jean-Philippe NN. , 183 AD3d 1029, 1031 [3d Dept 2020], lv dismissed 35 NY3d 1079 [2020]; Matter of Gallo v Gallo , 138 AD3d 1189, 1191 [3d Dept 2016]).

2018Inasmuch as a child's testimony at a Lincoln hearing is to remain confidential ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter , 137 AD3d 1339, 1342 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]), we remind Family Court to take appropriate precautions to fulfill its "paramount obligation" ( Matter of Julie E. v David E. , 124 AD3d 934, 937 [2015]) to protect the child's right to confidentiality and to shield the inadvertent disclosure of such information, including by taking a break in the proceedings to ensure that the Lincoln hearing is transcr

2018Inasmuch as a child's testimony at a Lincoln hearing is to remain confidential ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter , 137 AD3d 1339, 1342 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]), we remind Family Court to take appropriate precautions to fulfill its "paramount obligation" ( Matter of Julie E. v David E. , 124 AD3d 934, 937 [2015]) to protect the child's right to confidentiality and to shield the inadvertent disclosure of such information, including by taking a break in the proceedings to ensure that the Lincoln hearing is transcr

2020Finally, we note that Family Court should not have disclosed on the record any information provided by the child during the Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Verry v Verry , 63 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 707 [2009]).

2018While such disclosure does not constitute an independent basis for disturbing Family Court's order, a child's right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing is of paramount concern and Family Court should, in the future, ensure that what transpires during the course thereof remains confidential ( see Matter of Lilly NN. v Jerry OO. , 134 AD3d 1312 , 1315 n 3 [2015]; Matter of Verry v Verry , 63 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 707 [2009]; see also Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln , 24 NY2d 270 , 272—273 [1969]).

2018Inasmuch as a child's testimony at a Lincoln hearing is to remain confidential ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter , 137 AD3d 1339, 1342 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]), we remind Family Court to take appropriate precautions to fulfill its "paramount obligation" ( Matter of Julie E. v David E. , 124 AD3d 934, 937 [2015]) to protect the child's right to confidentiality and to shield the inadvertent disclosure of such information, including by taking a break in the proceedings to ensure that the Lincoln hearing is transcr

2018Inasmuch as a child's testimony at a Lincoln hearing is to remain confidential ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter , 137 AD3d 1339, 1342 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]), we remind Family Court to take appropriate precautions to fulfill its "paramount obligation" ( Matter of Julie E. v David E. , 124 AD3d 934, 937 [2015]) to protect the child's right to confidentiality and to shield the inadvertent disclosure of such information, including by taking a break in the proceedings to ensure that the Lincoln hearing is transcr

2016The Lincoln hearing is allowed as a manner of directly ascertaining the child’s wishes and may also serve to corroborate information that has been adduced on the record during the course of the fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 271-272 [1969]; Matter of Julie E. v David E., 124 AD3d 934, 938 [2015]; Matter of Justin CC. [Tina CC.], 77 AD3d at 212 ; see also Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter, 137 AD3d 1339, 1342-1343 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]). “[T]he right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing belongs to the child and is superior to t

2016The Lincoln hearing is allowed as a manner of directly ascertaining the child’s wishes and may also serve to corroborate information that has been adduced on the record during the course of the fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 271-272 [1969]; Matter of Julie E. v David E., 124 AD3d 934, 938 [2015]; Matter of Justin CC. [Tina CC.], 77 AD3d at 212 ; see also Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter, 137 AD3d 1339, 1342-1343 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]). “[T]he right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing belongs to the child and is superior to t

2016We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the mother’s request that it conduct a Lincoln hearing before ruling on the father’s motion (see Matter of Yeager v Yeager, 110 AD3d 1207, 1209-1210 [2013]; Matter of Minner v Minner, 56 AD3d 1198 , 1199 [2008]; cf. Matter of Walters v Francisco, 63 AD3d 1610, 1611 [2009]; see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 271-274 [1969]).

2016We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the mother’s request that it conduct a Lincoln hearing before ruling on the father’s motion (see Matter of Yeager v Yeager, 110 AD3d 1207, 1209-1210 [2013]; Matter of Minner v Minner, 56 AD3d 1198 , 1199 [2008]; cf. Matter of Walters v Francisco, 63 AD3d 1610, 1611 [2009]; see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 271-274 [1969]).

2024Because "the fundamental purpose of a Lincoln hearing is to ascertain a child's preferences and concerns," holding such a hearing with the subject children, who are now 12 and 9 years old, may provide Family Court with important information that would assist it in crafting an appropriate schedule of parenting time ( Matter of Christine TT. v Dino UU. , 143 AD3d 1065, 1068 [3d Dept 2016]; see Matter of Samantha WW. v Malek XX. , 217 AD3d 1081, 1083 [3d Dept 2023]).

2024Because "the fundamental purpose of a Lincoln hearing is to ascertain a child's preferences and concerns," holding such a hearing with the subject children, who are now 12 and 9 years old, may provide Family Court with important information that would assist it in crafting an appropriate schedule of parenting time ( Matter of Christine TT. v Dino UU. , 143 AD3d 1065, 1068 [3d Dept 2016]; see Matter of Samantha WW. v Malek XX. , 217 AD3d 1081, 1083 [3d Dept 2023]).

2023We conclude that a Lincoln hearing is called for under these circumstancesand remit the matter to Family Court to conduct a Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Sarah OO. v Charles OO. , 198 AD3d 1151, 1153 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Edwin Z. v Courtney AA. , 187 AD3d at 1354 ; Matter of Jessica B. v Robert B. , 104 AD3d at 1078; Matter of Yeager v Yeager , 110 AD3d at 1209-1210 ), and any appropriate hearing following same.

2023We conclude that a Lincoln hearing is called for under these circumstancesand remit the matter to Family Court to conduct a Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Sarah OO. v Charles OO. , 198 AD3d 1151, 1153 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Edwin Z. v Courtney AA. , 187 AD3d at 1354 ; Matter of Jessica B. v Robert B. , 104 AD3d at 1078; Matter of Yeager v Yeager , 110 AD3d at 1209-1210 ), and any appropriate hearing following same.

2019The court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a Lincoln hearing, especially considering that no party requested one ( see Matter of Burrell v Burrell , 101 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2012]; Matter of Farnham v Farnham , 252 AD2d at 677 ).

2019The court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a Lincoln hearing, especially considering that no party requested one ( see Matter of Burrell v Burrell , 101 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2012]; Matter of Farnham v Farnham , 252 AD2d at 677 ).

2016Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs. * Although we must agree with the mother’s argument that Family Court erred in revealing the substance of the child’s statements made during the Lincoln hearing, reversal is not justified here (see Matter of Rohde v Rohde, 135 AD3d 1011 , 1011 n [2016]; Matter of Lawrence v Kowatch, 119 AD3d 1004 , 1006 n 1 [2014]; Matter of Rivera v LaSalle, 84 AD3d 1436, 1437 [2011]).

2016Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs. * Although we must agree with the mother’s argument that Family Court erred in revealing the substance of the child’s statements made during the Lincoln hearing, reversal is not justified here (see Matter of Rohde v Rohde, 135 AD3d 1011 , 1011 n [2016]; Matter of Lawrence v Kowatch, 119 AD3d 1004 , 1006 n 1 [2014]; Matter of Rivera v LaSalle, 84 AD3d 1436, 1437 [2011]).

2026To the extent that the court improperly disclosed some of the child's statements at the Lincoln hearing ( see Kaleta v Kaleta , 225 AD3d 1293 , 1295 [4th Dept 2024]; Matter of Carter v Work , 100 AD3d 1557 , 1558 [4th Dept 2012]), we conclude that the error does not justify disturbing the court's determination here ( see Carter , 100 AD3d at 1558; see also Matter of John M. v Tashina N. , 218 AD3d 935, 938-939 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026To the extent that the court improperly disclosed some of the child's statements at the Lincoln hearing ( see Kaleta v Kaleta , 225 AD3d 1293 , 1295 [4th Dept 2024]; Matter of Carter v Work , 100 AD3d 1557 , 1558 [4th Dept 2012]), we conclude that the error does not justify disturbing the court's determination here ( see Carter , 100 AD3d at 1558; see also Matter of John M. v Tashina N. , 218 AD3d 935, 938-939 [3d Dept 2023]).

2018With regard to the father's claim that Family Court's best interests analysis is flawed due to its failure to conduct a Lincoln hearing, this issue is unpreserved given the absence of any request that Family Court do so ( see Matter of Gallo v Gallo , 138 AD3d 1189, 1191 [2016]; Matter of Colleen GG. v Richard HH. , 135 AD3d 1005, 1009 [2016]).

2018With regard to the father's claim that Family Court's best interests analysis is flawed due to its failure to conduct a Lincoln hearing, this issue is unpreserved given the absence of any request that Family Court do so ( see Matter of Gallo v Gallo , 138 AD3d 1189, 1191 [2016]; Matter of Colleen GG. v Richard HH. , 135 AD3d 1005, 1009 [2016]).

2026To the extent that the court improperly disclosed some of the child's statements at the Lincoln hearing ( see Kaleta v Kaleta , 225 AD3d 1293 , 1295 [4th Dept 2024]; Matter of Carter v Work , 100 AD3d 1557 , 1558 [4th Dept 2012]), we conclude that the error does not justify disturbing the court's determination here ( see Carter , 100 AD3d at 1558; see also Matter of John M. v Tashina N. , 218 AD3d 935, 938-939 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026To the extent that the court improperly disclosed some of the child's statements at the Lincoln hearing ( see Kaleta v Kaleta , 225 AD3d 1293 , 1295 [4th Dept 2024]; Matter of Carter v Work , 100 AD3d 1557 , 1558 [4th Dept 2012]), we conclude that the error does not justify disturbing the court's determination here ( see Carter , 100 AD3d at 1558; see also Matter of John M. v Tashina N. , 218 AD3d 935, 938-939 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026Moreover, while information obtained from a child during a Lincoln hearing "may serve to corroborate other evidence adduced at a fact-finding hearing" ( Matter of Kalam EE. v Amber EE. , 244 AD3d 1523 , 1525 [3d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks, emphasis and citations omitted]), the issues before Family Court turned primarily on the parties' inability to cooperate, as demonstrated through their private communications; the father has not identified any specific testimony or factual dispute that would have been clarified or corroborated by the child's participation ( compare Matter of Edwin

2025Thus, we remit the matter to Family Court to conduct a Lincoln hearing and any appropriate hearing following same ( see Matter of Samantha WW. v Malek XX. , 217 AD3d 1081, 1083 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Edwin Z. v Courtney AA. , 187 AD3d 1352, 1354 [3d Dept 2020]).

2024Additionally, although not raised by the parties, we take this opportunity to remind Family Court that statements made by a child during a Lincoln hearing carry no independent evidentiary value ( see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln , 24 NY2d 270, 273 [1969]; Matter of Christine TT. v Dino UU. , 143 AD3d 1065, 1068 [3d Dept 2016]), and that such statements must remain confidential to protect children in custody proceedings "from having to openly choose between parents or openly divulging intimate details of their respective parent/child relationships" ( Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405 , 1

2024Footnote 5: At a Lincoln hearing, Family Court should tell the child that it will keep the information shared by the child confidential, and it should keep that promise by sealing the transcript of the Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d at 1408).

2022Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that a Lincoln hearing would have "on the whole benefit[ted] the child[ren] by obtaining for the Judge significant pieces of information need[ed] to make the soundest possible decision" ( Lincoln , 24 NY2d at 272 ; see Matter of Noble v Brown , 137 AD3d 1714, 1715 [4th Dept 2016]).

2022Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that a Lincoln hearing would have "on the whole benefit[ted] the child[ren] by obtaining for the Judge significant pieces of information need[ed] to make the soundest possible decision" ( Lincoln , 24 NY2d at 272 ; see Matter of Noble v Brown , 137 AD3d 1714, 1715 [4th Dept 2016]).

2018Inasmuch as a child's testimony at a Lincoln hearing is to remain confidential ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter , 137 AD3d 1339, 1342 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]), we remind Family Court to take appropriate precautions to fulfill its "paramount obligation" ( Matter of Julie E. v David E. , 124 AD3d 934, 937 [2015]) to protect the child's right to confidentiality and to shield the inadvertent disclosure of such information, including by taking a break in the proceedings to ensure that the Lincoln hearing is transcr

2018Inasmuch as a child's testimony at a Lincoln hearing is to remain confidential ( see Matter of Heasley v Morse , 144 AD3d 1405, 1408 [2016]; Matter of Gonzalez v Hunter , 137 AD3d 1339, 1342 [2016], lv dismissed and denied 27 NY3d 1061 [2016]), we remind Family Court to take appropriate precautions to fulfill its "paramount obligation" ( Matter of Julie E. v David E. , 124 AD3d 934, 937 [2015]) to protect the child's right to confidentiality and to shield the inadvertent disclosure of such information, including by taking a break in the proceedings to ensure that the Lincoln hearing is transcr

2020Inasmuch as the AFC expressed the children's wishes to the court ( see Matter of Montalbano v Babcock , 155 AD3d 1636, 1637 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 912 [2018]), the children were both of young age ( see Matter of Olufsen v Plummer , 105 AD3d 1418 , 1419 [4th Dept 2013]), and there are indications in the record that they were being coached on what to say to the court ( see Matter of Sloma v Sloma , 148 AD3d 1679 , 1680 [4th Dept 2017]), we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of the mother's request for a Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Charles M.O. v Heather S.O. ,

2020Inasmuch as the AFC expressed the children's wishes to the court ( see Matter of Montalbano v Babcock , 155 AD3d 1636, 1637 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 912 [2018]), the children were both of young age ( see Matter of Olufsen v Plummer , 105 AD3d 1418 , 1419 [4th Dept 2013]), and there are indications in the record that they were being coached on what to say to the court ( see Matter of Sloma v Sloma , 148 AD3d 1679 , 1680 [4th Dept 2017]), we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of the mother's request for a Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Charles M.O. v Heather S.O. ,