By Petition dated December 26, 2007 Petitioner Father ("Father") moves for visitation with his two children Nicole (d.o.b. [redacted]) ( "Nicole") and Jordan (d.o.b. [redacted]) ("Jordan"). In addition to the present petition, Father has filed at least sixteen petitions against Respondent Mother ("Mother") in Family Court since 2002 including nine petitions for downward modifications of child support resulting in a current child support obligation of $47.00 [*2]a month for the parties two children. Mother has filed twelve petitions against Father in Family Court including six for Orders of Protection or for modifications and violations of orders issued. This constant litigation between the parents has resulted in multiple appearances, multiple lawyers, and multiple forensic evaluations which caused these subject children to be interviewed on a myriad of occasions by a number of professionals.

B. This Trial.

The instantvisitation petition filed by Petitioner Father was tried on several dates. The trial began on August 2, 2009. Father testified on August 4, 2009, February 9, 2010, March 3, 2010, April 20, 2010, April 26, 2010, April 27, 2010, May 3, 2010, May 10, 2010, July 27, 2010, September 27, 2010 and September 28, 2010. Mother testified on June 15, 2010, June 22, 2010, July 12, 2010, July 22, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 13, 2010, and September 27, 2010. Dr. Swadesh Grant testified on November 23, 2009 and February 22, 2010. Marie Beauregard-Weiss L.C.S.W. testified on November 17, 2009 and February 9, 2010. Dr. Wilma Cohen-Lewis testified on November 25, 2009, February 24, 2010 and March 3, 2010.

Ms. Kathleen Wallace, Esquire, represented Father, Ms. Zoie Mair, Esquire, represented Mother, and Ms. Rita Kaufman, Esquire, served as attorney for the two children Nicole and Jordan. The children were interviewed separately in camera in the presence of their lawyer on November 10, 2010. Counsel for the parties submitted written questions for consideration at the in camera examinations. Written summations were submitted by all counsel. For the detailed reasons set forth below, the instant Petition by Father for visitation is denied in its entirety. Father is further enjoined from filing any further Petitions against Mother or these children absent prior approval of this Court or Family Court.

The parties were marriedin India onFebruary 11, 1991. The marriage was an arranged marriage and represented a second marriage for both parties. Father has two daughters from his first marriage, Jessica and Jasmine, who reside in Chicago. Mother has no children from her first marriage. Mother moved to the United States on or about September 26, 1991 to live with Father in Brooklyn. In March of 2000, the parties purchased a house in Staten Island with the help of Mother's father who co-signed the mortgage.

The parties were divorced on September 14, 2007. In their Stipulation of Settlement dated May 10, 2006 (the "Divorce Stipulation"), the parties incorporated a Final Order of Custody from Family Court dated September 22, 2004 (McElrath J.). This Order granted Mother custody of the two children, but did not grant Father scheduled visitation. Instead, the parties were ordered to attend family counseling to address the visitation issues between Father and the children, and were further ordered to comply with any visitation that the counselor deemed appropriate. The parties then commenced therapy with Marie Beauregard-Weiss L.C.S.W. which included several [*3]sessions with the parents and three joint sessions with Father and Children.

Father was removed by police from the marital home on or about July 9, 2003 pursuant to a Family Court Order of Protection issued after an incident of domestic violence against the subject child Nicole (then 9 years old). Since that incident, some eight years ago, the children have interacted with their Father on less than ten occasions. The interactions that have occurred have been court ordered in furtherance of litigation by Father, and have been supervised by professionals including two social workers, and two forensic evaluators. All visitation between these children and Father has been forced on the children by court Order.

A. Father.

Father is fifty two years old. At the time of the marriage, Father was employed as an insurance claims adjuster. He has since lost that job and is currently employed as a part time security guard making approximately $250.00 a week. Little testimony was offered as to Father's current living condition or economic circumstance other than the fact that he still owns his own home. Father claimed that he is being ministered by his Pastor and hopes to secure a degree from that exercise. Father testified that he loves his children and wishes to visit with them. Father maintains that, if compelled again to visit with him in a supervised or other setting, the subject children would "come around" and "learn to enjoy" his company. Father pays child support in the amount of $23.50 per child per month for a total monthly obligation of $47.00. The Divorce Stipulation required Father to pay $199.06 a month in child support, however, Father succeeded in getting this obligation substantially reduced as a result of multiple petitions filed in Family Court against Mother.

B. Mother.

Mother is forty five years old and has had sole custody of Nicole and Jordan since September 22, 2004. Mother explained that she never had a "love type" relationship with Father, but they maintained a "Husband and Wife" relationship during the parties' marriage. Mother is a nurse and lives with the two children in the former marital residence. Mother has been the sole parent in the children's lives since July 9, 2003 when Father was excluded from the marital home following an incident of domestic violence against Nicole. It is Mother's position that the children are mature enough to decide for themselves what, if any, relationship they want with Father and has indicated that she will support any decision they make in this regard.

C. The Children.

Nicole is now seventeen years old. She attends [redacted] High School. Nicole maintains an A average and is involved in various extra curricular activities in school and church. Nicole intends to become a physician. Her brother Jordan is now thirteen years old. He attends Intermediate School [redacted] and hopes to attend [redacted] High School in the future. Jordan finished seventh grade with a 98 average and was near the top of his class. Jordan is also actively involved in church activities. Father has not been actively involved in any aspect of his children's [*4]life since he was removed from the home some nine years ago.The children were protected parties under a two year full stay away Final Order of Protection issued by Family Court on December 18, 2007 (McElrath J.). Under the terms of that Order, Father was Ordered to stay away from the home and school of both childrenuntil December 18, 2009. (L.G. Ex.No.1).

Mother credibly testified that her children have been negatively affected by the prolonged litigation between the parties. The children blame Mother for not being able to stop the litigation, and have asked why they are forced to go through proceeding after proceeding without the Court accepting their vehement opposition to any relationship with Father. The children, through their attorney, have consistently maintained that they do not wish to visit with their father under any circumstance, supervised or otherwise.

Over years of bitter litigation and days of trial, each party has recounted to this Court a litany of incidences that have occurred between them and between Father and the children. This Court discusses in this opinion only those events which weighed most heavily in this Court's decision:

A. Domestic Violence Against Mother.

Mother credibly testified that there have been numerous incidents of domestic violence throughout the parties' relationship. This domestic violence started on their first meeting in India when Father tried to touch Mother's "private part" without permission. (N. R., 6/15/10, P10) After the parties moved to the United States, the violence continued. While the parties lived in Brooklyn, Mother estimated acts of violence to occur on a monthly basis, increasing to a weekly basis when the parties moved to Staten Island. Mother testified that during her pregnancy with Nicole, Father pulled Mother's hair and pushed her to the floor onto her visibly pregnant stomach. (N. R., 6/15/10, P24). Mother testified that Father would slap her, for example, if the food was not prepared to his liking or the house was not cleaned well enough. Mother credibly testified that physical abuse would occur quite often and would cease only when she "kept quiet and didn't say anything." (N. R., 7/26/10, P83).

During Mother's pregnancy with Jordan, Father's physical and emotional abuse continued. Father would physically abuse Mother any time she "didn't do something he told [her] to do." (N. R., 6/15/10, P27). Mother testified that she would often have to call out sick from work because of "bruises here and there on my face" and "swollen eyes because I was crying or because of some impact." (N. R., 6/22/10, P6-7). Despite years of domestic violence, Mother testified that she never reported the abuse because in her culture it is shameful to divulge marital strife. In or around December of 2002, Mother filed a Petition for a limited Order of [*5]Protection because she couldn't tolerate the abuse anymore. In that Petition, Mother alleged physical and verbal abuse in the presence of the children but she didn't ask the Family Court to exclude Father from the home. (Pet. Ex. #16). Mother did seek to exclude Father from the marital home after an incident that occurred on July 9, 2003 wherein Father abused the child Nicole.

Mother credibly testified that the children witnessed much of the physical, verbal and emotional abuse inflicted on her. On many occasions, the children would intervene in an attempt to stop Father from abusing Mother. Mother testified that on one occasion "[Nicole] was afraid that I am going to get hit and get hurt" so "she just came and hugged me." (N. R. 7/26/10, P 79-80). Mother also testified that Jordan, while too small at the time to physically intervene, would often shout at Father in an attempt to come to Mother's aid. Mother credibly testified that Father was routinely verbally abusive to her in front of the children. Father frequently referred to her using the Indian word for "whore", and often called her "a piece of garbage." (N. R., 7/26/10, P79). Mother credibly testified that due to this consistent physical and verbal abuse engaged in by their Father, the children were constantly scared. Mother's allegations of domestic violence were corroborated by the children during the forensic interviews.

B. The July 2003 Incident.

The parties spent a significant amount of trial time discussing this incident involving Nicole, which ultimately resulted in Father being excluded from the marital home. Mother testified credibly when discussing this topic. Father's testimony was credible only in so far as he admitted that the event occurred.

Both parties agree that an incident on July 9, 2003 resulted in the issuance of a full stay away Order of Protection and Father's removal from the marital home. Nicole saw Father removing documents from Mother's car and reported it to her. Mother confronted Father demanding that he give the papers back to her. A heated argument ensued after Father refused to return the papers. Mother left for work late that evening, lingering in the house because she "felt like he [was] going to do something to Nicole." (N. R., 6/15/10, P33). When Mother returned from work, she found Nicole "black and blue."(N. R., 6/15/10, P34). Nicole told Mother that Father beat her for telling on him. That same day, Mother went to Family Court and filed a Petition for a full stay away Order of Protection, which was granted, excluding Father from the marital home.

Father admits that he "punished" Nicole by hitting her after she "snitched" on him for removing papers from Mother's car. (J. R., 4/20/10, P33). Father testified that he felt Nicole was wrong for telling Mother on him and needed to be punished. Father testified that he eventually "apologized to [Nicole] for anything she thinks that I have done wrong." (J. R., 4/20/10, P36). [*6]

C. The Finger Incident.

Mother credibly testified that in 2001, Father kicked Nicole and broke her finger. Mother did not witness the incident. Mother testified that, at the time of the incident she was cooking breakfast and called for Nicole to come downstairs. Nicole did not respond because she was watching television. Father went upstairs to get her. A few moments later Nicole came running downstairs crying and stated "he kicked me and my finger is hurting." (N. R., 6/22/10, P16).

Thereafter, Mother took the child to an orthopedist who x-rayed Nicole's finger and determined that it was fractured. Mother admits that she lied to the doctor about how the injury happened and that she told Nicole to lie also. Mother claims she lied because Father was previously investigated by children's services after an injury to his daughter from his first marriage that was sustained while in his care. Father told Mother that another investigation against him might result in the removal of Nicole and Jordan from their home.

Father's account of this event differs greatly. He claims he was playing ball with both of his children in the yard when Nicole tried to catch the ball and broke her finger. Other than the alleged cause of the injury, Father provided little information about this event or the medical care required as a result, stating that "the mother was doing, taking care of it."(J. R., 4/26/10, P36). While Father denies ever having told Mother or Nicole to lie about how she got injured, he does admit that there was a prior child protective incident involving his daughter Jessica. Father testified that Jessica was injured by an object thrown during an argument with his first wife.

While this Court obviously does not condone Mother's failure to tell the truth about how Nicole's finger was injured, this Court does credit Mother's testimony that Father told her that her children might well be removed if another incident was reported. The Court also credits Mother's testimony as to the events surrounding the injury to Nicole's finger. The Court finds Father's account of the incident not credible.

D. Stalking.

Since Father's exclusion from the marital home in 2003, Mother has reported to the police numerous violations of her Order of Protection. Mother testified that these alleged violations would typically take the form of Father banging on the door and then running away. She has often seen Father following her and passing by the house. Mother has filed at least one petition for an Order of Protection alleging stalking. In that sworn petition, dated May 11, 2005, which was received into evidence without objection as "Law Guardian's Ex. #2," Mother alleged that Father:

"Has been stalking the petr and the children since the last order ofprotection has expired.... Petr states that resp calls the petr harassing her. Petr states that resp bangs on her door and throws rocks at the house. Petr states that resp goes in the backyard and throws rocks at the windows scaring the children. Petr states that resp steals petr's mail.... Petr states resp waits outside petr's home and [*7]follows petr when she leaves for work every night. Petr. states that every morning the resp is waiting for petr outside petr's job.... Petr. states it is at the point that she can't go anywhere with or without the children, the resp is constantly following them."

E. Isolation From Maternal Relatives.

In December 2002, Mother told Father that she wanted to take the children to India to attend their cousin's wedding. Father refused to sign a passport application so they could attend. Mother described living with Father like being in prison, with Father not allowing Mother or the children to go anywhere, spend any money, or see her parents or extended family. Both parties agree that much of their arguing was over Father's refusal to allow Mother and the children to see Mother's family. Mother would advocate for the children visiting with their grandparents, and Father would argue that they could not afford it, a hollow excuse as Mother's parents were willing to incur any costs involved. Mother credibly testified that Father "slapped" her and would "fist fight" with her often in front of the children when she would ask him to allow them to see her family (N. R., 6/15/10, P45).

In a rather bizarre attempt to ensure that the children could not travel to India to see their maternal grandparents, Father wrote a blatantly false email to then Secretary of State Colon Powell wherein he claimed that Mother evidenced an intent to abduct the children and relocate to India permanently. Mother discovered this outrageous act after reading the response from the Department of State. Father does not deny sending a letter to the passport issuing office alleging that Mother might abduct the children. Mother finally obtained a passport for the children after she obtained an Order of Sole Custody in September 2004. To this day, given the limited financial support the children receive from Father, Mother has still not been able to travel to India with the children.

F. Father's Use of Corporal Punishment Against Nicole and Jordan.

The Court credits Mother's testimony that Father frequently resorted to corporal punishment against the children, particularly against Nicole. Mother credibly testified "[Father] has a habit to open hand and just slap... the way he slapped left quite a few times marks"(N. R., 6/22/10, P32).While the violence against Jordan was less severe than that inflicted by Father against Nicole, Father did use corporal punishment against Jordan as well. Mother credibly testified to one such occasion when Jordan was in first grade. On that day, Jordan approached Father for help with his homework. Father hit Jordan for interrupting him while he was watching television (N. R., 9/13/10, P13). During their interviews with Dr. Cohen-Lewis, both children detailed occasions when they were hit by Father. (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P11-12).

G. Parental Alienation.

Much of Father's testimony at trial, and during his interview by Dr. Cohen-Lewis, was focused on his belief that Mother is alienating his children from him. Father strongly believes [*8]that Mother has "brainwashed" the children against him and caused them to suffer from "Stockholm Syndrome." (Cohen-Lewis, 11/25/9, P42). Mother indicated that she would support the children if they desired to visit with Father.The Court credits Mother's testimony and finds no evidence that Mother has in any way attempted to alienate the children from their Father. Rather, it is Father's conduct towards Mother and his children that has resulted in their refusal to visit, or otherwise have anything to do with, him.

H. Mother's Finances.

When given the opportunity to explain to this Court why it was in the children's best interest to be compelled to visit with him after all these years, Father wasted that opportunity. He devoted a substantial portion of his testimony to his understanding of Mother's current finances and her alleged inability to make good on her financial obligations. At trial, Mother admitted that she has significant debt and is financially strained, due in no small part, to Father's failure to support these children in any significant way. When asked how Father could have gained such current personal information about Mother so many years after their divorce, Father claims that he speaks to "creditors who call him". Father's testimony was not credible. Rather, much more credible is Mother's belief that, even though the parties have not lived together for seven years, Father continues to use whatever means available to him to harass Mother and invade her privacy.



I. The Forensics Examinations.

Throughout the course of the parties long history of litigation, the children have been examined by multiple professionals. During the course of the present trial three such professionals were called as witnesses: Dr. Swadesh Grant who conducted a forensic evaluation in 2004; Dr. Cohen-Lewis who conducted a second evaluation in 2008; and Ms. Beauregard-Weiss L.C.S.W. who conducted supervised visits and family therapy for the parties following their divorce in 2007. Therapeutic visits were also supervised by Ms. Eileen Montrose L.C.S.W., but Ms. Montrose was never called to testify.

Dr. Grant was called by Father and was qualified as an expert in forensic psychology. In 2004, Dr. Grant interviewed the parents and the children individually for the purpose of evaluating the family regarding issues of custody and visitation. During the interview process, Dr. Grant interviewed Mother three times, Father two times, and the children once. No joint parent-child interaction session was conducted. Dr. Grant submitted her report to the Court, noting that it was incomplete. In her report, Dr. Grant recommends supervised visits between Father and the children. At this trial, Dr. Grant admitted that she has had no involvement with this family in over six years. Dr. Grant testified that Mother's allegations of domestic violence in the home were corroborated by the children.

Dr. Cohen-Lewis was called by Mother and also was qualified as an expert in forensic psychology. Dr. Lewis's evaluation of the parties was conducted in 2008. Dr. Cohen-Lewis [*9]interviewed Father and Mother individually, Mother and the children together, and Father and the children together along with numerous collateral sources. Dr. Cohen-Lewis concluded that Father was narcissistic and totally oblivious to the feelings and needs of the children. In her detailed report, Dr. Cohen-Lewis recommends that Father have no visitation with the children and concludes that forcing visitation would "interfere with [the children's] developmental needs at this age." (Dr Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P47).

Father also called Ms. Beauregard-WeissL.C.S.W. who observed three visits between Father and the children in 2004. Ms. Weiss described these visits as "disastrous."Ms. Weiss testified at trial that, in her professional opinion, visitation with Father would be unproductive unless the children consented to the visits. In her opinion, forcing the children to see their father against their will might be traumatic. Lastly, Ms Weiss stated that she saw enough evidence in her interviews with Nicole to diagnose her with "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" due to her relationship with her Father and the abuse she witnessed in the marital home. (Weiss, 11/17/2009, P 76-77).

The Applicable Law

The determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the best interests of the children. Matter of Larkin v. White, 79 AD3d 751 (2d Dept. 2010). Where domestic violence is alleged, the Court must consider the effect of such violence on the best interest of the child. Manfredo v. Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498 (2d Dept. 2008). The Court has discretion to deny visitation where substantial evidence is adduced that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. Samuel S. v. Dayawathie R. 63 AD3d 746 (2d Dept. 2009). The most important factor to be considered in a visitation case is the best interests of the children. Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113 (2d Dept. 1990). The rights of a parent, while important, must yield to the rights of the children where it is in the children's best interests. Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270 (1969). In reaching a determination regarding the children's best interests, the children's preferences, while not dispositive, are entitled to serious consideration. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 (1982). "The recommendations of court appointed experts, and the attorney for the child, are factors to be considered and are entitled to some weight, but they do not usurp the judgment of the trial judge." Baker v. Baker, 66 AD3d 722 (2d Dept. 2009).

During his lengthy testimony before this Court, Father was not credible as to virtually all of the incidents critical to this Court's decision. Father refuses to accept any blame in the breakdown in his relationship with his children. Father is insistent that the souring of his relationship with his children is due to the actions of Mother. He strongly believes that if given yet another opportunity to visit with his children that they would "come around." This unsupported and self serving view fails to take into account the effect his actions have had on his children. When asked why he feels that his children don't call him, Father testified: "They don't have my phone number, so, probably they don't call me."(J. R., 4/27/10, P13). This statement is one of many that demonstrates Father's utter lack of insight as to the role he played in the deterioration of his relationship with his children. Furthermore, Father denies that he ever struck Mother or Jordan, and claims that he only struck Nicole once when she "snitched" on him to Mother. (J. R., 4/27/10, P40-42). These denials, which were expressed to the children during the forensic evaluation with Dr. Cohen-Lewis, demonstrate the profound lack of empathy on Father's part and his failure to appreciate the damage he has done to his children. Indeed, even when the children were describing to Father what they witnessed and experienced at his hands, "he argued with them and called them liars." (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P15).

After many days of trial testimony, this Court has serious concerns about Father's ability to place the children's interests before his own needs. Father has used each Court Ordered opportunity offered him to re-establish a relationship with his children and squandered it by using the time to ridicule Mother, and express his own self serving version of events, with no thought as to how it would affect the children. In one such episode, Father, while sitting in session with Dr. Cohen-Lewis, told the children that the home they live in is not "their home", but is in fact owned by their grandfather, since he pays the mortgage. (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P21). Dr. Cohen-Lewis testified that Father "was determined to prove to [Nicole] that it's not their house..." and that he didn't "recognize the need for a child to say it's our house'." (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P22). Dr. Cohen-Lewis testified that Father is "narcissistic," as he is unable to separate the children's need for closure from his own need to tell his version of the story. (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P39).

Dr. Cohen-Lewis, in her forensic report and testimony, opined that Father is self absorbed and "lacking the capacity for empathy." (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P39). Dr. Cohen Lewis described Father as "controlling," "narcissistic," and "self absorbed"(Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P39-40). Dr. Cohen-Lewis testified that, even during the course of her interview, Father attempted to control the situation and tell her how to conduct the Court Ordered interview. Father didn't want to be "interrupted with questions," and wanted "documented proof" of what Mother was alleging. [*11](Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P43-45). Dr. Cohen Lewis further testified that Father refuses to accept any blame for what happened, and attempted to justify and rationalize all of the blame and responsibility for his current estrangement from his children, blaming it all on Mother.

When observing Father and the children together Dr. Cohen-Lewis reported that the children made an attempt to address the issues that led them to the current situation. Dr. Cohen-Lewis testified that Nicole and Jordan both confronted Father, telling him that they saw him "hitting Mother," "throwing her on the floor," and that they "heard her screams." (Cohen-Lewis, 11/25/09, P32). Nicole reminded Father that he had hit her to the point of bruising, and broke her finger in 2001. (Cohen-Lewis, 11/25/09, P33). Father responded by calling them liars. When Dr. Cohen-Lewis inquired as to the statements made by the collateral sources she contacted, many of whom corroborated the allegations of domestic violence, Father said "they're liars, and liars breed liars, and liars are afraid of those liars, and they're Satan."(Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P35).

Dr. Cohen- Lewis concluded that the children are excelling in the custody of Mother and that they are "happy... contented..... and love their life." Dr. Cohen-Lewis identified the one negative aspect in their lives as "their father's persistence through the courts, that's making them very unhappy." (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P37). Dr. Cohen-Lewis testified that any court ordered visitation would be "coerced visitation" that would have a negative effect on the children. Dr. Cohen-Lewis further explained that coerced visitation would interfere with their "developmental needs" and reinforce their belief that no one cares about how they feel. (Cohen-Lewis, 3/3/10, P47-48). After a detailed examination of the parties, and contact with a number of collateral sources, Dr. Cohen-Lewis recommends that the children have no visitation with Father at this time. The thoughtful and supported recommendation of Dr. Cohen-Lewis, while only one factor, was given significant weight by this Court. Matter of Buxenbaum v. Fulmer, 2011 NY Slip Op 2663, (2d Dept. 2011); Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114 (2d Dept.1995).

While Dr. Grant reached a different conclusion, this Court respectfully declines to follow Dr. Grant's suggestion that the children have supervised visitation with Father. Baker v. Baker, 66 AD3d 722 (2d Dept. 2009). First, Dr. Grant has not seen the children, or interacted with the family in over six years. Second, during her forensic evaluation, Dr. Grant did not have the opportunity to observe the children and Father together. Dr. Grant admitted that the absence of any child parent interaction made her report incomplete and "unresolved". (Grant, 11/23/09, P19). Moreover, Jordan was six and Nicole was ten at the time they were interviewed by Dr. Grant. In a case where the maturity of the children is of paramount importance, a six year old forensic report bears little probative value to the best interests of the children who are now thirteen and seventeen. Matter of Damien P.C. v. Jennifer H.S., 24 AD3d 525 (1st Dept 2006).

In addition to the two forensic evaluators, the Court also heard the testimony of Marie B. Weiss, L.S.C.W. At the direction of the Court, Ms. Weiss conducted three supervised, therapeutic visits with Father and the children in 2004. Ms. Weiss testified that she has not seen the children, or the parties in at least five years. (Weiss, 11/9/9, P8). The three visits conducted by Ms. Weiss, were, in her opinion "disastrous." (Weiss, 11/17/9, P17). The first and second [*12]visits were marked by increased disassociation, with the children repeatedly stating "I want to leave" (Weiss, 2/17/9, P20). The last visit ended with the children running out of the room crying after Nicole accused Father of stalking them, which Father denied. After that date the children refused to return for additional visitation. Ms. Weiss testified that forcing the children to visit would re-traumatize them, and therefore, she would not recommend an Order of visitation.

On the subject of domestic violence, which this Court has specifically considered, Mother credibly testified that Father has been physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive towards her since the parties were married. Mother credibly testified that much of this abuse took place in the presence of the children, and that the children often attempted to intervene. Mother also credibly testified that the children were also victims of domestic violence, often being slapped, and or berated by Father. The domestic violence against the children cumulated in Father being removed from the house in 2003 after he beat Nicole, leaving her black and blue. The long history of domestic violence in the marital household against both mother and the children was a significant factor in this Court's decision. Matter of Flangos v. Flangos, 70 AD3d 691 (2d Dept. 2010); Matter of Elnatanova v. Admin. for Children's Servs., 34 AD3d 802 (2d. Dept. 2006).

Last, the detailed in camera examinations support the position of the children's attorney that no visits be compelled. The children, now thirteen and seventeen, clearly articulated their position on this subject, which was given substantial weight by this court. Matter of Mohabir v. Singh, 78 AD3d 1056 (2d Dept. 2010); Bowe v. Robinson, 23 AD3d 555 (2d Dept. 2005).

After carefully considering the evidence in this case including the in camera examinations of the children, and for the detailed reasons set forth above, this Court denies Father's application to compel visitation over the clearly expressed wishes of the children. Forcing the children to visit with their Father would not be in their best interests and would likely be detrimental to their welfare. Matter of Schick v. Schick, 72 AD3d 1100 (2d Dept 2010); Nacson v. Nacson, 166 AD2d 510 (2d Dept. 1990). Any attempt to further a relationship with Father at this point in the children's lives would cause them undue emotional distress. Matter of Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin, 58 AD3d 635 (2d Dept. 2009). While the Court does not make this decision lightly, Mother, and the Attorney for the Children, have offered substantial evidence that forcing visitation with Father would be detrimental to the children's welfare, such that the drastic remedy of denying visitation is necessary. Matter of Cicone v. Ciccone, 74 AD3d 1337 (2d. Dept. 2010). Father has failed to prove that visits of any nature would be in the children's best interests.In this case, there is no evidence that Mother has in any way attempted to alienate either of the children from their Father. To the contrary, Mother has consistently maintained that she will support any visitation that the children feel safe and comfortable engaging in. It is the [*13]children who have adamantly refused to have anything to do with their Father.

Mother and the children are seeking some semblance of finality. In one form or another this family has been involved in ongoing litigation for over seven years. For children that excel in every aspect of their lives, the constant threat of litigation represents the only negative aspect of an otherwise happy life. The children have expressed that their wishes are not being heard, and that they are tired of "being ignored" by the Court Ordered professionals necessitated by Father's constant litigation. Each child has expressed that they fear future filings and the protracted litigation process that comes along with each one including visits with doctors and social workers. Father admits that he is aware of his children's view towards visitation, but feels that his right to sue for visitation is superior to their refusal to visit.

While public policy mandates equal access to the courts, a parent's right to visit is secondary to the rights of a child and must be sacrificed if it conflicts with the child's best interests. Allen v. Farrow, 215 AD2d 137 (1st Dept. 1995). A party may forfeit the right to file future petitions if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in litigation motivated by spite or ill will. Matter of Molinari v. Tuthill, 59 AD3d 722, (2d Dept. 2009). Here, Father's insistence on compelling visitation with his children against their will has become vexatious and has the potential to do more harm to the children then any possible positive benefit. On one of the few limited opportunities that Father has had to talk with the children, he indicated to them that he would "never give up" and that he would continue to fight to gain access to them. (Cohen-Lewis, 2/24/10, P11-13). Moreover, Father wasted the opportunities presented to him to repair his relationship with the children, using them to air his grievances against Mother, to confront the children about their "lies," and to further traumatize them. Father's resort to non stop litigation over the course of eight years, clearly against the will of his children, indicates that his filing is motivated, at least in part, by ill will, spite, or a pervasive refusal to acknowledge that he must now reap the consequences of the relationships he has destroyed. For the reasons set forth at length above, Father is hereby enjoined from any future filings for visitation with the subject children without prior approval from the Court in which he is attempting to file. Matter of Simpson v. Ptaszynska, 41 AD3d 607 (2d Dept. 2007); Matter of Pignataro v. Davis, 8 AD3d 478 (2d Dept. 2004).

It is, of course, always the hope of this Court that family members will find a way to enjoy safe, meaningful and quality relationships with each other. However, in this case, for the detailed reasons set forth above, there is no evidence to suggest that any attempt by this Court to compel the same would be in the children's best interest at this time. To the contrary, it is the belief of this Court that should a visitation Order issue, it would only strengthen the children's resolve against seeing their Father and put them in the untenable position of being in violation of a Court Order, which given the history of these parties, would no doubt expose the children to further protracted litigation and further trauma. For the reasons set forth above, Father's petition to compel an Order of visitation is denied in its entirety. No further petitions for visitation shall be filed by Father unless in accordance with this Order.

[*14]This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

E N T E R:

____________________________CATHERINE M. DIDOMENICO

Acting Justice Supreme Court

Dated: May 18, 2011

Staten Island, New York