In 2018, disabled father Marc Fishman was arrested during a court-ordered supervised visitation with his son — a moment that would ignite years of litigation over false arrest, disability discrimination, and civil rights violations.

What makes this arrest extraordinary is that, under Westchester County policy, supervised visitation is officially administered by the Department of Probation. That means Fishman was effectively under the supervision of a county probation officer at the time — and law enforcement had no authority to arrest him without a request from that officer.

A System Few Understand

In Westchester County, “supervised visitation” isn’t just a family-court service — it’s part of a formal county probation program. Under a 2013 resolution, the Westchester County Department of Probation contracted with the YWCA of White Plains and Central Westchester to run its Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Center.
Funded with nearly $200,000 in taxpayer and federal dollars, the program was created to provide a safe, monitored environment for non-custodial parents to visit their children — often in cases involving protective orders or disputed custody arrangements.

The program is directly overseen by the Probation Department. Quarterly reports track each family’s status, and the county explicitly defines the program as a probationary service designed to protect children and parents while maintaining compliance with court orders.

The Arrest That Should Never Have Happened

During one of these supervised visits, Fishman was accompanied by probation officer Ann Elliot, who was responsible for oversight and reporting to the court.
When police arrived, they arrested him on the claim of violating an order of protection. On the arrest report, the box asking whether a probation officer was present was marked “Unknown.”

Yet the officers knew Elliot was there — and that her presence meant Fishman was already under county supervision. Under New York State law and standard probation protocol, a probationer cannot be arrested during active supervision unless the probation officer initiates or requests the arrest. Elliot made no such request.

That omission turns what was presented as a lawful arrest into a procedural violation — a false arrest.

The Federal Funding Problem

The implications go beyond a single arrest.

Because the Westchester supervised visitation program was funded in part by federal DOJ grants through the Office on Violence Against Women, Fishman argues that his arrest represents not only local misconduct but a violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act.

The Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal assistance. Fishman — who suffers from hearing loss, occipital neuralgia, and traumatic brain injury — contends that county officials took funds intended to protect families and used them to discriminate against him as a disabled father instead.

Patterns of Misconduct and Selective Enforcement

Fishman’s case also raises questions about selective enforcement and double standards in how supervised visitation is policed.

According to county records, hundreds of families each year participate in the same program — yet no other parent has been arrested during a supervised visitation session.

If the program operates as an extension of probation — which county contracts confirm — then Fishman’s arrest stands out as a targeted action by police and prosecutors who ignored both county policy and federal law.

Why It Matters

The issue isn’t just legal — it’s systemic. When supervised visitation is treated as probation, the line between family court and criminal court becomes dangerously blurred. Parents seeking to follow court orders find themselves trapped in an environment where any misinterpretation can lead to arrest, even when they’re already under government supervision.

This crossover between civil family law and criminal enforcement — without due process — is exactly what the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act were meant to prevent.

Conclusion

The 2013 Westchester County resolution proves what Fishman has argued for years: supervised visitation in Westchester is a probation-run program.

By arresting him during a court-approved, county-supervised visit — without the involvement of his probation officer — local police violated their own procedures and Fishman’s civil rights.

This false arrest, carried out under the guise of family-court enforcement, underscores a deeper problem: when county systems blur their own boundaries, disabled parents like Marc Fishman pay the price.

---

---

Support Independent Journalism

The Thunder Report and NewRochellePoliceAbuse.com is funded solely through reader support. Help sustain investigations that hold public institutions accountable.
Donate, Buy Me a Coffee, or Subscribe for Updates.