¶1While 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 abuse of discretion in the direction that retroactive maintenance (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]) be paid at the rate of $200 a week. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.
179 A.D.2d 562
Lightbourne v. Lightbourne
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 28, 1992
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1992-01-28
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1996
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1992-01-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →