It is well established that a court may not delegate its authority to resolve issues affecting the best interests of the child (Matter of Gadomski v. Gadomski, 256 A.D.2d 675, 681 N.Y.S.2d 374, (3 Dept., 1998); Matter of Henrietta D. v. Jack K., 272 A.D.2d 995, 707 N.Y.S.2d 560 (4 Dept., 2000)). Thus, it may not delegate its responsibility to determine issues related to custody and visitation to either a parent or a child (William-Torand v. Torand, 73 A.D.3d 605,901 N.Y.S.2d 601 (1s Dept, 2010), a mental health professional (Holland v. Holland, 92 A.D.3d 1096, 939 N.Y.S.2d 584 (3d Dept.,2012), a counselor (Camacho v. Camacho, 115 A.D.3d 1327, 983 N.Y.S.2d 182 (4th Dept.,2014) or other expert (Rueckert v. Reilly, 282 A.D.2d 608, 723 N.Y.S.2d 232 (2d Dept.,2010)

Similarly, disputes concerning child custody and visitation are not subject to arbitration because “the court’s role as parens patriae must not be usurped,” and such agreements may not be enforced (Glauber v. Glauber, 192 A.D.2d 94, 600 N.Y.S.2d 740 (2 Dept., 1993); Matter of Hirsch v. Hirsch, 4 A.D.3d 451, 774 N.Y.S.2d 48 (2 Dept., 2004)).