Teen does not have to visit dad, but appeals court suspends child support
Corrected: A Brooklyn judge had discretion to determine that a 13-year-old “vehemently opposed” to visiting his father should not be compelled to do so, a New York appeals court ruled.
But, under the circumstances of this case, the judge should have granted the pro se father’s alternative motion to suspend child-support payments, the Appellate Division, Second Department, said in its Sept. 2 decision.
The court cited the mother’s “inappropriately hostile” attitude toward the father, Robert Coull, who had not seen the boy since early 2010 and was not kept informed about his schooling and medical history.
“The forensic evaluator testified that there was a ‘pattern of alienation’ resulting from the mother’s interference with a regular schedule of visitation,” the appeals court wrote, noting that the mother, Pamela Rottman, who was also pro se, had “many times” said she “would do whatever it takes” to prevent visitation.
“The evaluator was unable to complete her evaluation because the mother refused to consent to the evaluator’s request to speak with mental health providers or school officials, and the child did not appear for his interview,” the appellate opinion also notes.
It isn’t clear how much Coull was paying in child support.
The New York Law Journal (sub. req.) has a story.
Updated at 12 p.m. to correctly name the mother.
