Legal Opinion
Lightbourne v. Lightbourne
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 28, 1992PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
While a parent may not be deprived of his or her right to reasonable and meaningful access to a child absent exceptional circumstances (Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 194, affd 56 NY2d 938), supervised visitation is not a deprivation to meaningful access (see, Matter of Aadahl v Aadahl, 148 AD2d 531), and defendant will have a full opportunity to present evidence at the time of the hearing for a final custody award. Nor was the award of temporary maintenance improper, the court having balanced the parties’ financial status, necessities and obligations (Rauch v Rauch, 83 AD2d 847). We find no…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Daghir v. DaghirAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Daghir v. DaghirNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Rauch v. RauchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Aadahl v. AadahlAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
3Cited by8 opinions
- Carl J. B. v. Dorothy T.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- J.F.E. v. J.A.S.Alaska Supreme Court · 1996
- Belkis P. v. Ramazan U.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Matter of Arcenia K. v. Lamiek C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Bibas v. BibasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.