The principal issue before the court is whether the mother or the father should have custody of this ten year old boy. The custody trial began on May 17, 2013 and concluded on July 29, 2014. At the hearing, both parties were represented by counsel and the subject child, Yvesmills M., was represented by the Children's Law Center. The court heard testimony from the father, the mother, the mother's former therapist, Meredith Doherty, and the maternal uncle. The court also did an in camera interview of the child on October 3, 2013 with the attorney for the child present. Several documents were admitted into evidence. Throughout the trial, the attorney for the child represented that while the child had expressed to her that it was his desire to live with the mother, she was substituting judgment for the child given his age and his lack of understanding about the court proceedings. At summation, the attorney for the child stated that her position had changed, that her client had grown physically and emotionally since the hearing started 14 months ago and that the child had gained an understanding of the proceedings. Therefore, the attorney for the child ultimately supported a final order of custody to the mother. After a review of the entire record and all the evidence presented, the court finds that the best interests of the child requires a final order of sole legal and physical custody to the father and an order of visitation for the mother.

The March 14th Article 10 petition alleged, inter alia, that on or about February 9, 2011, [*2]the respondent mother intentionally inflicted at least second degree burns on the subject child's buttocks. The petition further alleged that the mother's explanation for the injuries was inconsistent with the injury. The mother failed to seek medical treatment for the burns and then kept the child out of school for approximately seven days. The petition further alleged that the respondent mother and respondent father inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the child in that on April 29, 2010 the respondent father slapped the child with a brush on the child's leg, butt and head and that the mother hit the child with a brush and belt. Further allegations included that the mother punished the child by forcing him to kneel on a stick for two hours which caused both knees to bleed and then poured rubbing alcohol on the wounds.

On January 23, 2012, the fact finding on the abuse case was resolved with the mother's admission, in open court, that she abused the child by "intentionally inflicting burns to the subject child's buttocks." The father's case was resolved with the respondent father's consent to the entry of a finding of neglect without an admission pursuant to FCA §1051(a). See Order of Fact Finding on Docket NA 7478/11. On March 27, 2012, the matter proceeded to disposition and the child was released to the custody of the father, effective March 30, 2012, with six months of ACS supervision. See Order of Amended Order of Disposition. On this date, the court (Hon. Alan Beckoff) also entered a Temporary Order of Custody pursuant to the pending custody dockets, and vacated all previous orders issued on the custody dockets. On September 19, 2012, the mother then filed a petition for modification of this temporary order of custody. ACS also filed a motion seeking to extend ACS supervision for twelve months. On January 25, 2013, the court entered another Temporary Order of Custody in favor of the father until further order of the court. The court also extended ACS supervision for an additional twelve months nunc pro tunc to September 12, 2012 on consent of the mother. See Order on Motion No.3 dated January 25, 2013. At that the time, the mother's contact with the child was restricted to agency supervised visitation on Mondays and Wednesdays, speaking to the child on the phone for up to ten minutes on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and going to the child's school and talking to school staff.

On or about June 26, 2013, ACS filed a motion seeking to modify the order of disposition to expand the mother's visitation to unsupervised day visits with ACS discretion to expand to overnight visits. ACS withdrew this motion on August 20, 2013. Furthermore, ACS informed the court that it would not be seeking to extend supervision over the family. ACS supervision expired on or about September 12, 2013, thereby terminating ACS involvement with the family.

On March 28, 2014, after approximately three years of only supervised contact with the subject child, on consent of all parties, the court issued an order granting the mother two hours of unsupervised contact with the subject child. The order required the maternal uncle or the maternal grandmother to supervise the beginning and end of each visit.At the custody trial, the father testified on his own behalf. The subject child has resided with the father for over two years and four months. The father currently resides with the subject child, his twelve year old stepson De'Andre, his three year old daughter, Stella, and his wife, Stephania Ferrara^[FN1] . Yvesmills has a good relationship with both De'Andre and Stella. The father testified that Stella wants to go to school with Yvesmills and always wants to be with her brother. [*3]The father also stated that De'Andre and Yvesmills share a bedroom, and that De'Andre helps Yvesmills with his homework. The father is a taxicab driver in New York City and he works Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 6:00am to 6:00pm or 7:00pm, and earns approximately $40,000 annually. The father's wife is a school bus driver and works from 6:30/7:00am until 4:30/5:00pm. There is a babysitter that assists the family with child care Monday through Friday, from 5:00am until 6:00pm. The father also has four sisters that spend time with Yvesmills and assist him with caring for the child. Yvesmills has health insurance through the father's Health Plus medical coverage and has a regular pediatrician. Stephania is involved in all of the child's medical care and takes the child to the psychiatrist, the pediatrician and to his therapy appointments. Yvesmills has a loving relationship with Stephania and a loving relationship with his sister and his stepbrother. In terms of the father's relationship with Yvesmills prior to the child coming to live in his home, the father stated that he lived with the child and the mother until he and the mother broke up in 2005, when the child was approximately 1 ½ years old. Even after he and the mother separated, the father saw the child approximately three to four times a week, paid the mother child support and bought clothing, gifts, and groceries for the child.

The father testified that when the child was approximately five years old, he filed a visitation petition in Family Court. The father described Yvesmills as having ADHD and behavioral problems such as jumping, fighting in school, not following directions, not having guidance and "doing whatever he wants." The father stated that he took the child to his psychiatrist, participated in family therapy and parenting classes and went to classes at the public library to address the child's ADHD issues. Yvesmills currently sees a therapist on a weekly basis and a psychiatrist for medication management on a monthly basis. The father also attends joint therapy with the child. Yvesmills is on Concerta to address the hyperactivity. When Yvesmills initially came to live with him, the child was psychiatrically hospitalized at Bellevue Hospital for approximately three weeks in or about 2012 for his aggressive behavior and the father visited the child at the hospital every day and he met regularly with medical staff at the hospital. The father relayed that Yvesmills used to hit and kick people and had poor behavior.

In terms of disciplining the child, the father indicates that he takes away things from the child for bad behavior such as fighting in school and rewards him for good behavior. According to the father, Yvesmill's behavior has improved since he first came to live in his home, and that the child no longer kicks or hits people.Yvesmills attends P.S.114. The father attends parent-teacher meetings at the school and assists the child with homework. The father testified that the child has been student of the week multiple times since the child has come to live with him.

In the time that the child has been in the father's care, he has encouraged the relationship between the child's mother and his mother's family by bringing him to see the mother, the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle. The father stated that he has no problem with the mother calling Yvesmills every day and that he believes that it is important that the child has a relationship with his mother. The father acknowledged that the child always wants to see his mother and asks for his mother.According to the father, although the mother was permitted supervised visitation twice per week on Mondays and Wednesdays, and telephone contact three times per week, the mother [*4]was visiting inconsistently and calling sporadically. This made Yvesmills unhappy and sad because he looked forward to visits and phone calls with his mother. The father stated that the child would be excited to see his mother, but had behavioral problems after the visits, such as not following rules.

With regards to the burns that the subject child sustained as a result of the mother, the father stated that he saw the child's injuries a couple days after the child was initially removed in March 2011, and the child still has marks on his buttocks from where he was burned, and that these marks never went away. The father acknowledged that he consented to a finding of neglect based on his own excessive corporal punishment on the child and conceded that at the time, he did not have an understanding of how to parent Yvesmills the way he does now. The father went to parenting classes to help him understand the child's special needs.The mother's former therapist, Meredith Doherty, testified as a witness for the mother on August 20, 2013 and September 26, 2013. On consent of all counsel, Ms. Doherty was qualified as an expert in social work and psychotherapy, which she described as a "conversation aimed at changing maladaptive patterns, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors." Ms. Doherty was the mother's therapist at Bridging Access to Care mental health clinic for approximately 22 months, from September 2011 to July 2013. Ms. Doherty described the mother's attendance as poor at times and excellent times, and that it was not good for the last six months. Ms. Doherty had three joint sessions over the span of one month with both the child and the mother in or about August 2012 where she noted that mother and the child were very attached, but noted that the child was very temperamental and the mother was ineffective at managing his behavior. Ms. Doherty explained that the "incident" of the mother burning the child was not discussed much nor were her feelings about the "incident." The mother informed Ms. Doherty that she was cooking at the time, and the child was jumping on her, kicking her, and throwing things at her, that she did not know what to do and she got overwhelmed and angry and took the spoon she was cooking with and slapped him with it on the rear end.

According to Ms. Doherty, the focus of the therapy was the mother's anger towards ACS and how she was "feeling really burdened by the process, by ACS being involved in her life." Ms. Doherty further stated that the mother identified the primary problem as ACS. One of the mother's treatment goals was anger management, but Ms. Doherty acknowledged that the only way to measure progress in this area is through patient report, which is of questionable reliability. The mother was able to state to her therapist how she would act differently in the future if she was angry at her son, and give him "time outs" as the mother knows that violence towards a child is wrong. When the attorney for the child asked Ms. Doherty if she felt that the mother was merely reciting something that she learned in a class, or whether she truly understood what she had done and the best way to remedy it going forward, Ms. Doherty responded "a little bit of both." She further stated that she felt that the mother "was playing along with therapy." Moreover, when the attorney for the child asked Ms. Doherty if the mother appeared to be remorseful about her behavior Ms. Doherty replied with the following:

I didn't feel that much of that. I didn't feel a real depth of that. But I think that that was a little bit defensive too, that her reaction against the remorse and guilt was a defiance stand. So I don't believe that it's not there. I just think that we haven't uncovered it yet. [*5]Whoever the therapist is will get there...

Ms. Doherty recommended that the mother should have unsupervised visits during the day for up to eight hours where she could be given an opportunity to do things such as take the child out for lunch, take him home with her and make him food, and play games. Ms. Doherty further stated that the mother should not have the child overnight or for days at a time.

The mother also testified on her own behalf during the trial. When the child was born, the mother initially resided in her mother's home with the child until the child was approximately four months old, but thereafter the mother and father began residing together in Canarsie until the child was 1 ½ years old. The mother reported that they did not stay together because of "arguing, fighting and cheating." The mother moved back to her mother's house in 2005 and lived there until the child was approximately five years old. The father would visit the child on the weekends. Prior to the ACS removal of the child in February 2011, the mother was working as a nursing assistant for Life Saver and as a home care provider for Self Help.

According to the mother, there was domestic violence between her and the father "way back," when they were living together and that the last domestic violence between her and the father was "in court." The mother identified the period of domestic violence as the time when she was fighting to get custody of the child in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The mother stated that she was granted an Order of Protection but did not specify why or when.

Prior to February 2011, the mother described the child as misbehaving in school, and stated that the child got kicked out of P.S. 90 for punching a teacher when he was four or five years old. He then went to another school on Fennnimore Street and was kicked out of that school for not listening and fighting with the other children. The mother described the child as out of control, constantly hitting and punching. The mother did not bring the child in for an evaluation while he was in her care, and Yvesmills was not evaluated until he entered foster care. The mother testified that sometime in 2010 the child came home from a Sunday visit with his father with "marks and stuff like that," however, she did not elaborate on this, and the mother was unclear about whether this happened in the summer or in the beginning of the year.

On the witness stand, the mother gave her account of her act of abuse on the child. She stated that she had to pick up the child early from school because of his behavior and he was fighting with everyone. At home, she put the child in the corner but he would not go. The child also threw a chair and broke a flower vase. The mother told the child to take a shower but he would not go. The child started kicking and hitting her while she was in the kitchen. The child had no clothes on. The mother could not get the child to calm down so she picked up a belt but the child ripped the belt. She then picked up a ten to twelve inch plastic spoon with which she was cooking, and "in anger" she hit the child with the spoon two to three times. The mother admitted that she "lost control" and when asked about how she felt about what happened, the mother replied that she is "sorry about it" and that she knew she was not supposed to react that [*6]way and that she was not trying to hurt the child. The mother indicated that she should have custody of the child now because she has taken two parenting skills classes and she knows how to deal with the child's behavior now.

The mother described her second parenting skills class as a special needs parenting course that involved practicing parenting skills with real children. The mother introduced her JCCA parenting completion certificate dated May 11, 2013 as respondent mother's Exhibit A. The mother testified that she felt that she had learned from the program, and would now react to her son's behavior by putting him in a "safety place," calling 911 for help, by taking to the child to the hospital, and that she "would not touch" her son.

The mother asserted that she went to therapy, that this made her a better parent, and that she is a different person than she was in February 2011. She also attended joint therapy sessions with the child and stated that she was aware of the child's current diagnosis as being Attention Deficit Disorder and "ODD," which she described as his "opposite" behavior. The mother stated that Yvesmills is currently receiving therapy and medication, and that she is willing to continue with this if the child comes to live with her; however, she could not remember the name of the child's medication.The mother proposes that the child would have his own room in her home, that she is not working right now but would support him with Public Assistance, and that she would get a job since she has experience as a nursing assistant and has a security license as well as a cooking vendor license. The mother testified that the child would go to the same school and that she would take him there on the city bus. The mother indicated that her mother, the child's maternal grandmother, would assist her in caring for Yvesmills.

The maternal uncle, Yves C. , testified as a witness on behalf of the attorney for the child. Mr. C. testified that he has been involved in the child's life since birth and that he served as Yvesmills' foster parent for a number of months during the pendency of the Article 10 case. Since the court order of March 28, 2014, allowing the mother to have some unsupervised parenting time with the child, Mr. C. has supervised the time immediately prior to the unsupervised contact and immediately after. The mother has consistently visited the child on Saturdays over the last 4 months and Mr. C. has no concerns of inappropriate behavior on the part of the mother. Mr. C. stated that the child does not want to come back from the visit and wants to stay with his mother. Mr. C. believes that he has seen changes in the mother's interaction with the child over time, and that the mother is more patient and understanding now. Mr. C. described the interaction between the mother and Yvesmills as positive and that they watch cartoons, go shopping, and play at the park. Mr. C. testified that Yvesmills has been teaching his mother to play basketball. Mr. C. also noted that the child's behavior has changed for the better, now that the child is medicated, and that Yvesmills is calmer now and listens better. Mr. C. also testified that he has a good relationship with the father and that the father has always allowed him to see the child and that the child has been spending overnights at his home during the summer. Mr. C. stated that the child is very happy with the father.

In considering the question of child custody, the court must determine what is in the best interests of the child, and what outcome will best promote the child's welfare and happiness. See Esbach v. Esbach, 56 NY2d 167 (1982). In determining the best interests of the child, the court [*7]must consider the totality of the circumstances presented. Alvarez v. Alvarez, 114 AD3d 889 (2nd Dep't 2014). The factors to be considered include which parent will best promote stability; the available home environments; the past performance of each parent; each parent's relative fitness, including the parent's ability to guide the child, provide for the child's well being and foster the child's relationship with the non custodial parent; and, the child's wishes. Matter of Supangkat v. Torres, 101 AD3d 889 (2nd Dep't 2012). While the expressed wishes of the child are to be considered, they are by no means determinative. See Zucker v. Zucker, 187 AD2d 507 (2nd Dep't 1992); Matter of Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449 (2nd Dep't 1989). In addition, the court must consider the stability and companionship to be gained by keeping siblings and half-siblings together. See Matter of Faunteleroy v. Mercado, 5 AD3d 482 (2nd Dep't 2004); Esbach v. Esbach, supra at 173. The court must also consider the original placement of the child and the length of that placement. Matter of Garvin v. Garvin, 176 AD2d 318 (2nd Dep't 1991).

The court must also consider proven acts of parental unfitness such as prior findings of neglect or abuse. See, e.g., Matter of Herrera v. Vallejo, 107 AD3d 714 (2nd Dep't 2013) (prior neglect findings against the mother arising from her abuse of alcohol and her acts of domestic violence towards the child demonstrated extraordinary circumstances); Matter of Mark RR. v. Billie RR., 95 AD3d 1602 (3rd Dep't 2012) (record supported an award of sole custody to father where mother had prior finding of neglect based on her striking one of the children causing severe bruising and her inability to understand or cope with the child's special needs); Matter of Linda D. V. Renee D., 40 AD3d 1201 (3rd Dep't 2007) (father's prior adjudication of neglect, his criminal conviction for attempted burglary and arrest for possession of marijuana was sufficient to award custody of the children to the grandparents); Matter of Whitley v. Whitley, 33 AD3d 810 (2nd Dep't 2006) (Family Court properly awarded custody to the father who obtained temporary custody after the children were removed from the mother upon a finding of neglect).

Further, the court must consider the effects of domestic violence in evaluating what is in the best interests of the child. See DRL §240; Assini v. Assini, 11 AD3d 417 (2nd Dep't 2004); see also Williams v. Williams, 78 AD3d 1256 (3rd Dep't 2010) (mother's claims of domestic violence were not established by a preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider such claims in making its custody determination).

The overriding factor that the court has been required to consider at this trial is the underlying physical abuse finding entered against the mother. In evaluating the child protective history on this case, the court does not ignore the fact that a finding of neglect was also entered against the father on the same date, but the court does note that the father's consent to a finding was based on allegations of an isolated incident that occurred on or about April 29, 2010. In contrast, the mother was adjudicated to have abused the child by intentionally burning the child on the buttocks. It is significant to the court that the child was released back to the father's care on disposition on March 27, 2012. The Amended Order of Disposition permitted only agency supervised visits for the mother and ordered the mother to speak to the child only in English at visits, for the mother to have an updated psychological and psychiatric evaluation, continue with individual therapy, to cooperate with joint therapy with the child and to attend a program to address and gain insight into techniques to increase the pro-social behavior in the child. Notably, the father was required to attend such a program as well and to attend joint therapy with the child, but the father was not directed to complete any additional specific services for just himself, [*8]the way the mother was. The orders entered on disposition were consistent with the findings entered against both parents. A very serious finding of abuse was entered against the mother in contrast to the father's finding of neglect.

The attorney for the child offered photographs of the child in evidence as Exhibit 2, and these photographs depict the child's buttocks in February 2011, and the severe injuries that the child sustained as result of the mother intentionally burning the child with a hot spoon. The injuries span the entire buttocks and there are large areas of exposed flesh, approximately seven linear lesions, coupled with two larger circular or heart shaped areas where the skin is missing. While the mother acknowledged on the witness stand that she burned the child, the court found that she minimized the incident by first stating that she hit the child three times, and then clarifying and stating that it was two to three times. The court does not find this to be credible given the extensive injuries that are depicted in the photographs. These injuries are significant and it does not take a medical expert to see that the child was struck multiple times. Furthermore, the court does not credit the mother's statement that the child does not have any marks on his buttocks now. The mother's testimony is directly contradicted by the father's testimony that the child still has the marks on his buttocks from where he was burned by the mother. The mother was also prosecuted in criminal court for burning the child. The attorney for the child also introduced the mother's certificate of disposition from criminal court which shows that she plead guilty before the Hon. P. DiMango to endangering the welfare of a child, PL 260.10, was sentenced to three years of probation, which does not expire until November 2015, and an Order of Protection was entered for five years, which does not expire until November 2017.Pursuant to DRL §240, the court has considered the allegations of domestic violence made by the mother against the father. The mother's testimony with regards to the domestic violence was broad and vague and there was no evidence to substantiate the mother's claims that the father committed a family offense against her. The mother claimed that she had an Order of Protection against the father; however, the mother did not describe any specific incidents of violence apart from saying that there was domestic violence when she was fighting to get custody of the child in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The mother's testimony did not establish how any alleged acts by the father affected his ability to parent the child or his parental judgment. Therefore, the court gives little weight to this testimony. The court takes judicial notice that the mother filed a family offense petition against the father pursuant Docket O8785/08 at the same time she filed for custody of the child in March 2008. However, that case was dismissed without prejudice on March 27, 2012.

Yvesmills has been living with his father for the past two years and four months where he enjoys the companionship of his little sister Stella and his older stepbrother, De'Andre. The boys share a bedroom together. An order of custody to the father gives the child the benefit of growing up with two siblings. Both the mother and father are able to provide the child with a safe physical home environment; however, the father has more financial stability given the fact that he has a stable income from his job as a taxicab driver, and the father's wife Stephania has a stable job as a bus driver. In contrast the mother is not employed and derives income solely from Public Assistance although she states that she would secure a job if Yvesmills comes to live with her.[*9] In terms of fostering a relationship with the non-custodial parent, the court finds that both parents recognize the importance of the child maintaining a relationship with the other parent. The mother stated that if she has custody of the child, the child can go to the father's house whenever he wants, and the father also testified to how much the child enjoys spending time with the mother. The father also testified credibly that he never disparaged the mother, even when she was not visiting consistently or calling as often as the child wanted. He noted that the child would be sad but he would tell the child that the mother is stuck in traffic and try to soothe the child. The father also facilitated contact between Yvesmills and the mother's family and allows the child to spend the night at the maternal uncle's home on a regular basis. The father also consented to expanded unsupervised day visits and the mother spending overnight at the uncle's home with the child so long as the uncle is present.The child is thriving in the care of the father. His behavior has drastically improved in the years that the child has resided with the father. The father has proven himself to be a stable and fit parent of the child. He has addressed Yvesmills' mental health needs by ensuring that the child receives counseling and medication. Even the mother has conceded that the child is doing well in the father's care and that the child's behavior has changed. The child no longer displays physically aggressive behavior and he is doing well in school.

It was clear from the court's in camera interview with the child that the child loves both of his parents and looks forward to and enjoys spending time with his mother. The attorney for the child states that the child wants to live with his mother and have visitation with the father. If he cannot live with his mother, he would like to have weekend and overnight visitation with her. The court notes that the subject child just turned ten years old in May, and that he is "not mature enough to weight intelligently the factors necessary to make a wise choice as to [his] custody." Feltman v. Feltman, 99 AD2d 540, 541 (2nd Dep't 1984). The court finds that an order permitting overnight visitation with the mother would be against the weight of the evidence and not in the best interests of the child. The court notes that the mother's own witness, her treating therapist, and the only expert who testified in these proceedings, was opposed to overnight visits and visits over multiple days. The therapist's testimony was concerning in many respects. Most concerning to this court was Ms. Doherty's statements that the mother did not show much remorse for burning the child during the course of 22 months of therapy and that much of the focus of the therapy was the mother's anger towards ACS and the intrusion of ACS upon her life. While it appears that the mother made some strides in her therapy and has verbalized improvements in her parenting skills and anger management, it is clear to this court that the best interests and safety of this child will be promoted by issuing an order that the mother be permitted unsupervised day visits with the child, but not overnight unsupervised visits.

Furthermore, during the pendency of the trial, the court permitted the mother to have visitation supervised by relatives who had been previously cleared as visitation hosts by ACS. On March 28, 2014, on the attorney for the child's request, and on the father's consent, the court entered an order allowing the mother two hours of unsupervised visitation. Up until this date, the mother had only been permitted supervised contact with the child since the child was initially removed from her care in February 2011. On July 24, 2014, the attorney for the child and the mother requested unsupervised overnight visitation. This application was opposed by the father, however the father was in support of expanding the hours of the day visits. On consent of all [*10]counsel, the court allowed the mother to have unsupervised day visits on Saturday and Sunday from 10:00am to 6:00pm. Upon learning that the child often sleeps over the maternal uncle's home on Saturday nights, on consent of all counsel, the court permitted the mother to spend overnight with the child on Saturdays provided the maternal uncle is also present in the home.

Having given full consideration to all of the relevant factors, the position of the attorney for the child, and all of the evidence presented in this case, the court finds that the best interests of Yvesmills will be served by issuing a final order of sole legal and physical custody to the father, and an order permitting unsupervised day visits for the mother.

Accordingly, it isORDERED, that the father is granted sole legal and physical custody of the subject child, Yvesmills M., subject to regular visitation with the mother.

ORDERED, that the mother shall be entitled to have unsupervised day visits with the child for 8 hours on Saturdays from 10:00am-6:00pm and 8 hours on Sunday from 10:00am-6:00pm.

ORDERED, that the mother shall be entitled to spend overnight on Saturdays at the home of the maternal uncle, Yves C. , with the subject child, so long as the maternal uncle is present.

ORDERED, that the mother shall be entitled to have daily, reasonable and private telephone contact with the subject child.

ORDERED, that the mother shall be permitted to attend school functions, including but not limited to, meeting with teachers and other school personnel, and day field trips with the child.

ORDERED, that the father shall keep the mother apprised of the child's mental health services and medical care, including the names and contact information for the child's service providers.

ORDERED, that each parent shall keep the other apprised of any change in address or telephone number.

ORDERED, that the father shall sign all necessary forms and releases for the mother to be given access to information about the child's progress in school and for the mother to have access to information regarding the child's medical and mental health care.

ORDERED, that the mother it permitted to take the child to the doctor or a medical professional in the event of a medical emergency.ORDERED, that the mother is to have other such unsupervised day visitation with the child that the parties can mutually agree upon.