Opinion
12729 Dkt. No. V407-12/17A Case No. 2018-4935
12-29-2020
In re EUSHAWN M. R., Petitioner-Appellant v. AYONNA B., Respondent-Respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent. Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel Stanton of counsel), attorney for the child.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent.
Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel Stanton of counsel), attorney for the child.
Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), entered on or about July 2, 2018, which modified a visitation order to grant petitioner father limited supervised and therapeutic visitation, on condition that an appropriate program be located and approved by the court, and video visits with the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record supports the court's determination that petitioner's visitation with the child should be restricted to video visits and supervised and therapeutic sessions in a secure facility as necessary to protect the safety of the child and of respondent mother (see Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 174–175, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 [1981] ; Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). The record shows that petitioner has had no contact with the subject child since 2013, just before he was incarcerated for more than four years for violently assaulting and slashing respondent and that he has repeatedly communicated with respondent in violation of a final order of protection (see James W. v. Theresa D., 71 A.D.3d 556, 896 N.Y.S.2d 677 [1st Dept. 2010] ).