MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

the father sought to enforce his visitation rights and his right to be informed about significant
developments with his son. The mother consistently restricted them, arguing that the father did not
properly supervise the son. She refused him access in violation of assorted court orders directing
such access to the son. When the son was 22 years old, the mother petitioned for and was granted
Article 81 personal needs guardianship over her son. The order appointing her directed her to
provide reports to the father and the court, established a detailed visitation schedule, and specifically
found that there was no need for supervised visits for the father. Despite such order, for the next 14
months the mother continued to deny the father access, failed and refused to file court ordered
reports concerning her son, and, in fact, was held in contempt and fined for each visit she refused
to allow. She also refused to cooperate with a court appointed parent coordinator. She continued
to refuse visits and pay fines. She also had no telephone service at home and did not respond to
efforts by the parent coordinator to contact her, which she attributed to a lack of money to pay phone
bills. The father eventually moved to have her removed as guardian and to be appointed as successor
guardian in her stead. Despite the court noting her loving and supportive attention to her son, the
court nevertheless removed her as guardian and transferred guardianship to the father, noting that
the father did not pose a threat to his son, that it was in the son’s best interest to have a relationship
with his father, that the father was willing to allow liberal contact between the mother and son, and,
that the court could no longer tolerate the mother’s defiance of court orders.
Matter of Candace C., 27 Misc.3d 1221A; 2010 NY Misc Lexis 977 (Sup Ct., Dutchess Cty.,
2010)(Pagones, J.)
IP moved to have her mother removed as co-guardian of her person and to evict her from the
premises in which they both resided. The court granted the petition. In so doing, the court noted
that the appointing court had clearly been aware that the mother had been convicted of a felony, and
had appointed her nevertheless. The court continued that the record provided ample evidence that
the mother failed to fulfill her fiduciary duties, and also added that the hostility between the mother
and daughter, which included corporal punishment, together with their chaotic lifestyle and mutual
substance abuse, supported removal.
Matter of Carol S., 68 A.D.3d 1337; 890 N.Y.S.2d 209 (3rd Dept. 2009)
After the IP died, the Guardian of her Property attempted to prepare a Final Accounting but was
unable to complete it because she discovered that the Guardian of the Person had either removed or
secreted the IPs property and would not turn it over. The trial court issued many orders directing the
turnover but the Guardian of the Person failed and refused to comply. Eventually, the trial court held
her in contempt and of its previous orders and as a penalty, directed the Guardian of the Person to
pay the counsel fees and costs incurred by the Guardian of the Property in seeking to compel
compliance with the orders. The Guardian of the Person appealed unsuccessfully.
135