IN RE: BRIAN SHAW (2013)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: BRIAN SHAW, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. KATIE MAY SEALS–OWENS AND MICHELLE LEWIS, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.

CAF 12–01380

Decided: November 08, 2013

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT KATIE MAY SEALS–OWENS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM J. BARRETT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, MANLIUS.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order dismissing with prejudice his Family Court Act article 6 petition seeking visitation with his daughter. While we agree with petitioner that, under the unique circumstances of this case, Family Court erred in taking judicial notice of the alleged fact that his daughter is a severely abused child under Social Services Law § 384–b (8)(a)(iii)(A), we nevertheless conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition with prejudice. Inasmuch as there is an existing order of protection prohibiting petitioner from having any contact with his daughter until June 22, 2018, the court was without authority to award petitioner visitation (see e.g. Matter of Samantha WW. v Gerald XX., 107 AD3d 1313, 1315–1316; Matter of William O. v. John A., 84 AD3d 1447, 1448; Matter of Balram v. Balram, 53 AD3d 808, 809–810, lv denied 11 NY3d 708).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network