In re Shearer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shearer

129 A.D.2d 581, 514 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45251

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 6, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 581 (In re Shearer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Shearer, 129 A.D.2d 581, 514 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In two child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother (1) appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.), dated March 13, 1985, which, inter alia, directed that all visitation between the appellant and her children be suspended; and (2) purportedly appeals from an order of the same court (Facelle, J.), dated April 1, 1985, which remanded her to the Westchester County Penitentiary for a period of 30 days and directed that such term of imprisonment be suspended for a period of six months, on condition, inter alia, that the appellant not attempt to visit her children.

Ordered that the purported appeal from the order dated April 1, 1985 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to file a notice of appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 13, 1985 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts of the appellant mother during visitation with her children constituted neglect (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3). [582]*582Therefore, the order of the Family Court suspending the mother’s visitation with the children was appropriate.

The mother failed to file a notice of appeal with respect to the order of April 1, 1985. Therefore the purported appeal from that order must be dismissed (see, Matter of Kawaun Sharleke W., 121 AD2d 729; Siegel v Obes, 112 AD2d 930).

At oral argument, the counsel for the appellant mother stated that the mother is now undergoing psychiatric treatment. So that there may be no misunderstanding, we note that nothing contained in this decision shall be construed as precluding the mother from making a new application to resume visitation. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In two child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother (1) appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.), dated March 13, 1985, which, inter alia, directed that all visitation between the appellant and her children be suspended; and (2) purportedly appeals from an order of the same court (Facelle, J.), dated April 1, 1985, which remanded her to the Westchester County Penitentiary for a period of 30 days and directed that such term of imprisonment be suspended for a period of six months, on condition, inter alia, that the appellant not attempt to visit her children.