Genovese Files for Gag Order

On October 14, 2021, the court-appointed Attorney for the Child, Donna M. Genovese, Esq. of Goldschmidt & Genovese, LLP, initiated an Order to Show Cause requesting that the court impose a gag order restricting the father's speech regarding the custody proceedings and the child.

The motion, filed without opposition from the father (who did not appear), sought blanket restrictions on blogs, social media posts, and any public statements regarding the case. No opposition papers were filed by the father's side, and the father did not appear on November 5, 2021.

The court proceeded to hear the Order to Show Cause with the following parties present:

• Attorney for Child: Donna M. Genovese, Esq.
• Petitioner/Mother: Tara Katelyn Walsh
• Attorney for Petitioner: Christopher S. Weddle of Timko & Moses, LLP
• Grandma Linda Russell (on behalf of father's interests)
• Attorney for Linda Russell: Max Di Fabio of Di Fabio & Associates, P.C.

Notably absent: The father, Stephen Russell, and his counsel did not appear in person, though the court would later characterize this as a "default" proceeding — a characterization that would be directly contradicted by the Appellate Division years later when it found that contested proceedings had occurred.

The gag order as ultimately issued directed the father to:

• Erase any existing blogs containing references to the custody proceedings
• Deactivate social media accounts containing posts about the case
• Delete likenesses (photographs, images) of the child posted in connection with blogs
• Refrain from publishing future statements about the custody proceedings

The order was extraordinarily broad in its initial formulation, requiring blanket deletion of "any existing blogs and likenesses" regardless of whether they specifically related to the proceedings, the child, or the mother's family.

As Attorney for the Child, Donna M. Genovese was supposed to represent Evie's best interests. However, her motion for the gag order effectively silenced the child's father from speaking publicly about the case — including about evidence of drugging, abuse, and custody proceedings that would later be corroborated by:

• A San Francisco jury verdict finding the mother guilty of battery, drugging, domestic abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Toxicology reports showing drugging
• Depositions and sworn declarations from witnesses
• Court records from multiple proceedings

When the father appealed the gag order to the Appellate Division years later, that court (in Matter of Walsh v Russell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01522) found that:

• The order was not properly characterized as entered "on default"
• The blanket deletion provision was unconstitutional under the First Amendment
• The restrictions were not tailored as precisely as possible to the case's needs
• The gag order had silenced the father for over a year before being partially struck down

The gag order motion came at a critical moment:

The gag order represents a critical turning point where judicial power was exercised to silence one parent's voice in a custody dispute. Despite the father's later vindication through a jury verdict and appellate reversal, the gag order achieved its practical effect: by the time the Appellate Division struck it down in March 2023, the blogs had been offline for over a year and the crucial narrative about drugging and abuse had been silenced from public discourse.