By: Melissa L. Steinberg, Esq.

Disputes over visitation are among the most difficult issues that arise in Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 guardianship proceedings. A family member may believe that a Court-appointed guardian is unreasonably preventing contact with a loved one. Conversely, a guardian may conclude that visits from certain people are harmful to the person the guardian has been appointed to protect. In June 2026, the New York State Legislature passed a Bill known as “Karilyn’s Law,” which would change how Courts address these disputes. The Bill has not yet been signed into law. This post summarizes what the Bill would do, what it would not do, and what guardians and family members should consider in the meantime.

Current Law

When a Court appoints a guardian under Article 81, it may authorize the guardian to make decisions regarding the incapacitated person’s “social environment and other social aspects” of life. That authority may extend to decisions about visitors. This frequently serves a legitimate protective purpose, such as limiting contact with an individual who has been financially exploiting a vulnerable adult. However, visitation decisions may also become entangled in family conflict. Under current law, Courts already hear and decide visitation disputes brought by spouses, parents, children, and others, and a guardian’s decisions about visitors remain subject to the Court’s review. A relative who believes that contact is being restricted without adequate justification generally must apply to the Court for relief and, depending on the Court’s calendar and the circumstances of the case, that process may take considerable time.

In 2016, New York enacted “Peter Falk’s Law,” which requires the Order appointing a guardian to identify the persons entitled to notice of the incapacitated person’s death and funeral arrangements. It also permits the Order to identify the persons entitled to notice of a transfer to a medical facility and the persons entitled to visit, without limiting who else may visit. This law did not, however, establish a specific procedure or timeline for resolving visitation disputes. Karilyn’s Law would address that gap.

What Karilyn’s Law Would Change

If signed, the Bill would amend Article 81 to provide the following:

1. Expedited hearings. Where an application concerns family visitation, the Court would be required to hear the application and issue a Temporary Order within 10 days of signing the Order to Show Cause.
2. A presumption in favor of visitation. The Court would begin from a rebuttable presumption that visitation should be permitted.
3. A heightened standard for denial. Visitation could be denied only upon clear and convincing evidence that it is not in the individual’s best interests, and the Court would be required to state its determination on the record or in a written decision.
4. Judicial discretion to impose limitations. The Court would retain discretion to impose appropriate limitations, including supervised visitation.

In short, Karilyn’s Law would not create a new right to seek visitation. It would make the process faster for family members and place the burden on the party seeking to deny visitation.

What the Bill Would Not Do

Some public descriptions of the Bill have characterized it more broadly than its text supports. Several limitations are worth noting:

• Powers of Attorney and Health Care Proxies. The Bill amends the procedures governing Article 81 guardianship proceedings. It does not directly address visitation decisions made by an agent under a Power of Attorney or Health Care Proxy, or by a care manager outside of a guardianship.
• The definition of “family.” The Bill does not define “family,” and the Mental Hygiene Law contains no general definition of the term. Other sections of the law identify relatives in different ways, so it is unclear whether the Bill’s protections would extend to more distant relatives, close friends, or partners.
• Applications after a guardian is appointed. The amendment would appear in the section of the statute governing the Order to Show Cause commencing a guardianship proceeding. Whether it would apply to post-appointment visitation applications is a question the Courts will likely need to resolve.
• No guarantee of unrestricted visitation. Courts would retain the authority to limit, supervise, or deny visitation where the evidence warrants.

Considerations for Guardians

Guardians who have restricted, or are considering restricting, a visitor should document the specific reasons for that decision. Under the proposed standard, a denial of visitation would need to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, and generalized concerns may not satisfy that burden. Guardians should also consider whether a less restrictive arrangement, such as scheduled or supervised visitation, would adequately address the concern. Where a dispute is developing, it may be advisable to bring the matter to the Court’s attention promptly.

Considerations for Family Members

Family members who are being denied contact should make their requests in writing and maintain a record of the responses they receive. Their own conduct may become part of the record the Court reviews, so communications should remain measured. Family members should consult an attorney regarding whether to seek relief from the Court now; it is not necessary to wait for Karilyn’s Law to take effect before asking the Court to address a visitation dispute.

Status of the Bill

As of September 22, 2026, the Bill has passed both the Senate and the Assembly but has not yet been signed by Governor Kathy Hochul. If signed, the Bill would take effect immediately.

The attorneys at Littman Krooks LLP regularly represent guardians, family members, and other parties in Article 81 proceedings and are available to discuss visitation and other guardianship concerns.