Matter of Roslyn Womack v Lamont Jackson

Matter of Womack v Jackson 2006 NY Slip Op 04434 [30 AD3d 433] Decided on June 6, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 6, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
2005-07347 DECISION & ORDER

[*1]In the Matter of Roslyn Womack, petitioner-respondent,

v

Lamont Jackson, respondent-respondent; Daniel D. Molinoff, nonparty-appellant. (Docket No. V-16491-04)




Daniel D. Molinoff, Larchmont, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child,
nonparty-appellant.

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the Law Guardian, Daniel D. Molinoff, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an amended order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Morales Horowitz, J.), dated June 21, 2005, as denied those branches of his motion which were to appoint, nunc pro tunc, a psychiatrist to evaluate the parties and the child, and to direct the parties to pay the psychiatrist's fee.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, those branches of the Law Guardian's motion which were to appoint, nunc pro tunc, a psychiatrist to evaluate the parties and the child, and to direct the parties to pay the psychiatrist's fee are granted, and the parties are directed to equally share the cost of the psychiatrist's fee.

The value of forensic evaluations of both the children and the parents in custody and visitation disputes has "long been recognized by the courts of this state" (Stern v Stern, 225 AD2d 540, 541). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court should have granted that branch of the Law Guardian's motion which was to appoint, nunc pro tunc, the psychiatrist who had conducted an independent evaluation of the parties and the child, and directed the parties to equally share the cost of the psychiatrist's fee (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[b]; 22 NYCRR 202.18).
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, KRAUSMAN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court