Judges, advocates tell Assembly that supervised‑visitation programs are scarce and costly; lawmakers weigh a state fund

Assembly leaders convened a joint hearing of the Assembly Standing Committees on the Judiciary and on Children and Families to examine access to and resources for court‑ordered supervised visitation across New York State. Judges, legal aid attorneys and advocacy groups told lawmakers that professionally staffed, trauma‑informed supervised visitation and safe exchange programs are in short supply, leaving many families waiting months for ordered services.

The hearing opened with testimony from Judge Richard Rivera, the statewide coordinating judge for family court matters, who said an updated Unified Court System report shows “28 counties in New York State have no programs at all, which is up from 20 from the year prior.” Rivera and other jurists described long wait lists, limited hours and programs that only provide a small number of visits per family, which they said contributes to adjournments and slower case resolution.

Betsy Kramer, director of public policy at Lawyers for Children, illustrated the human toll with client stories. "As of today, 5 months and 3 court appearances later, Clara has not been able to see her mother," Kramer said, describing a child placed on a wait list for supervised visits that prevented progress in the court case. Liberty Aldrich of the Children’s Law Center urged the legislature to fund expansion and oversight; she said a newly formed working group asked lawmakers to "allocate $20,000,000 to address this need."

Witnesses described a range of local costs and program models. Rivera and other panelists cited an Office for Justice Initiatives estimate of roughly $200,000 in startup costs for a new program in a county (about $3,000 per family for six months), while local examples included a recent Rensselaer County program that "charges $150 for 90 minutes." Several speakers said those fees remain unaffordable for many families and that grant funding is often temporary.

Panelists discussed program design, eligibility and oversight. Several witnesses recommended a state‑run grant program contracting with nonprofit providers, with standardized training, reporting requirements and penalties for providers who fail to follow safety protocols. Some panelists favored housing the initiative in the Office of Victim Services to emphasize trauma‑informed care and supervision; others discussed OCFS or OC A grant models and the need to coordinate with the Unified Court System.

On funding and eligibility, witnesses suggested sliding‑scale fees tied to means tests or existing public‑defender eligibility, and urged that low‑income families receive priority. Ronald Richter of JCCA said some supervised or therapeutic services may be billed to Medicaid in qualifying cases but noted logistical and rate‑structure challenges to integrating Medicaid‑funded clinicians into court settings.

Speakers also urged better data collection and reporting so courts can know how many families need services and how long they wait. Panelists described the difference between therapeutic visits (clinical facilitation to rebuild parent‑child relationships) and supervisory visits (neutral oversight for safety and court reporting), and recommended a continuum of services available evenings and weekends.

The committees did not take formal votes. Chairs said the testimony will inform legislative work on program design and budgeting for the coming fiscal year. The hearing closed with committee chairs thanking witnesses and staff for their testimony and pledging to consider the program models and funding options discussed.