Matter of Sandra L. Fletcher v Devon Fletcher

Annotate this Case
Matter of Fletcher v Fletcher 2006 NY Slip Op 04085 [29 AD3d 908] May 23, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 19, 2006

In the Matter of Sandra L. Fletcher, Appellant,
v
Devon Fletcher et al., Respondents.

—[*1]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the maternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Clark, J.), dated December 16, 2003, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith, including a determination as to whether supervised visitation in New York and limited telephone contact with the petitioner would be in the children's best interests.

Contrary to the Family Court's determination, there was no testimony that the children were adversely affected by seeing the petitioner (see Augustine B. C. v Michael B., 84 AD2d 740, 741 [1981]; cf. Matter of Janczuk v Janczuk, 305 AD2d 680, 681 [2003]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 305 AD2d 879 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 375 [2004]). Indeed, the paternal grandparent, in whose foster care the children were placed, characterized the petitioner's interaction with the oldest child during visits as "positive" and the law guardian generally supported the petition.

Upon all of the circumstances, we find that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition. However, the evidence in the record supports a determination that supervised visitation in [*2]New York and limited telephone contact with the petitioner would be in the children's best interests. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.