In 2005, Jamie sought sole custody of her daughter on the grounds that her husband, Mark, had sexually abused the child.
Although the Family Court of Rensselaer County couldn't determine whether abuse had occurred, it nevertheless granted Jamie sole custody and gave Mark supervised weekly visits.
When Mark later asked for modification of those rights, on the basis that he hadn't been found guilty of any misconduct, Jamie asked that the request be denied because Mark hadn't shown a "change in circumstances."
After the Family Court gave Mark "gradually increasing unsupervised visitation," Jamie appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department, which affirmed the outcome.
Since the initial limitation was premised upon abuse allegations, which were later found to be "unfounded," that was a sufficient change upon which Mark could seek relief. (The AD3 also considered the fact that the child had reestablished a "meaningful relationship" with her dad and was benefiting from the interaction.)
What meaning do you discern from that?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Mark P. v. Jamie Q
.