What occurs when there is evidence that visitation may harm the child?

When there is evidence that visitation may harm the child, the appropriate response is often to deny visitation rights. This reflects the primary concern of the court, which is the welfare and safety of the child. Courts operate under the premise that a child’s well-being is paramount, and if there is credible evidence indicating that visitation could expose the child to harm—whether that harm is physical, emotional, or psychological—then the court is likely to take significant protective measures.

This approach is rooted in the best interest of the child standard, which guides family law decisions regarding custody and visitation. If the evidence suggests potential harm, it is more prudent and responsible for the court to deny visitation rather than risk any possible negative impact on the child.

In contrast, options that suggest visitation could be granted under certain conditions—such as with restrictions or supervision—do not adequately address the serious concern of potential harm. These options would typically be considered only if there is some assurance that the visitation could be conducted safely, which is not the case when evidence of harm is present. Therefore, the most protective option for the child's safety is to deny visitation outright when there is concern for their well-being.