In New York, corporal punishment by a parent is not automatically considered abuse or neglect. The law allows for reasonable physical discipline, but when the actions of a parent result in physical injury or pose a risk to a child’s physical or mental health, they may cross the line into neglect. In Matter of Z.V. (J.V.), the Family Court considered whether a father accused of physically harming his daughter should be allowed court-ordered visitation with her. The court also addressed whether an outside evaluator should assess the possibility of visits. This case highlighted how visitation decisions in neglect proceedings focus on the child’s safety and well-being.
Background Facts
On May 31, 2024, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed a neglect petition under Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The petition was filed on behalf of 12-year-old Z.V. against her father, J.V. According to ACS, on May 22, 2024, the father entered the bathroom where the child was and told her to “square up.” He took her laptop and provoked her to retrieve it. During the confrontation, he allegedly placed the child in a chokehold and wrestled her to the floor. The child reported that she struggled to breathe and felt like she was about to die.
The child fled the apartment, went to her former school, and did not return to her father’s home. A forensic interview conducted the next day revealed that this was not the first time the father had physically restrained her. At the interview, the child showed physical injuries including a bruise on her cheek and red scratch marks on both forearms. She was later taken to the hospital for treatment.
On the same day the petition was filed, the court removed the child from the father’s custody and placed her with her adult half-sister. The court also issued a stay-away order of protection, allowing only supervised visitation, and only if the child agreed to it.
Question Before the Court
The question before the court was whether it should allow a third-party professional to decide if and how visitation should occur, or whether the court should continue to make those decisions itself.
Court’s Decision
The court denied the father’s motion for a visitation assessment. The court reasoned that such evaluations are more typical in custody cases and are not appropriate in Article 10 neglect proceedings. The court also found that it had sufficient information to make its own determination about visitation, and that involving another evaluator would burden the child unnecessarily.
The court emphasized that the child, who was 13 by the time of the ruling, had consistently refused to visit with her father. She told the court that she wanted to engage in therapy before having any further contact with him. The court also considered that the father had failed to follow court orders and had not provided valid medical insurance information necessary to arrange therapy for the child. He also failed to return the child’s personal belongings in a timely manner.
Discussion
In a neglect case, the court can limit a parent’s visitation rights when there is evidence that visits may harm the child. Under Family Court Act § 1030(a), a parent has the right to reasonable visitation with a child placed in the temporary custody of social services unless the court limits it. But the presumption in favor of visitation can be rebutted with evidence showing that visits are not in the child’s best interests.
In this case, the court noted that while the child loves her father, she was not ready to see him. She tried a phone call with him, but the conversation upset her. He cried during the call and blamed others for his actions. The court considered this behavior to be manipulative and unhelpful in rebuilding trust.
The child also made it clear that she wanted therapy to process her experiences before considering visits. However, ACS was unable to arrange therapy because the father delayed providing accurate insurance information. The court viewed this failure as a lack of cooperation. It also showed that the father was not prioritizing the child’s emotional and mental health.
Another issue was the father’s refusal to return the child’s personal belongings. Despite being ordered to do so, he withheld the items for several months. The court noted that this showed a lack of respect for the child’s needs and the authority of the court.
The father’s legal team cited a recent First Department case, Matter of Michael B. v Patricia S., which stated that a court cannot give one parent or a child the power to decide whether visitation occurs. But the court distinguished that case by explaining that it applied to custody matters, not neglect proceedings. In Matter of Z.V., the court made its own decision about visitation, based on evidence, and did not delegate that decision to the child or to a social worker.
The court reiterated that it had carefully reviewed the facts and was best positioned to decide whether visits should happen. It stated that the father’s actions during the case, not just the original allegations, influenced its decision. It also reminded the father that it would continue to review visitation as the case progressed, but that he had to show a willingness to comply with court orders and support his child’s needs.
Conclusion
Note that the court does not always give significant weight to a child’s testimony in neglect cases. However, in this case, the court considered the child’s statements carefully due to her age, maturity, and consistency. At 13 years old, she was able to clearly express her wishes and explain why she was not ready to visit with her father. The court found her statements credible and used them to help determine the type of visitation that would be in her best interests.
If you are involved in a child neglect case or facing allegations related to parenting, it is important to seek legal advice. Contact an experienced New York child abuse and neglect lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to learn how to protect your rights and your family.