Bambi C. v. Michial F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bambi C. v. Michial F.

265 A.D.2d 816, 695 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9847

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 816 (Bambi C. v. Michial F.) 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

Bambi C. v. Michial F., 265 A.D.2d 816, 695 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly dispensed with the consent of respondent to the adoption of his children pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a). Neither the order of protection prohibiting respondent from contacting the children nor his incarceration prevented him from contacting the persons having legal custody of the children, or the Jefferson County Department of Social Services, the agency maintaining supervision of respondent and the children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; Matter of Naticia Q., 226 AD2d 755; Matter of Charmaine T., 173 AD2d 625, 627). “The parent who has been prohibited from direct contact with the child [ren], in the child [ren]’s best interest, continues to have an obligation to maintain contact with the person [s] having legal custody of the child [ren] (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]). Failure to do so is a clear manifestation of an intent to forego parental obligations to the children]” (Matter of Paul S., 170 Misc 2d [817]*817750, 753; see also, Matter of Ulysses T., 87 AD2d 998, 999, affd 66 NY2d 773). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Adoption.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly dispensed with the consent of respondent to the adoption of his children pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a). Neither the order of protection prohibiting respondent from contacting the children nor his incarceration prevented him from contacting the persons having legal custody of the children, or the Jefferson County Department of Social Services, the agency maintaining supervision of respondent and the children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]; Matter of Naticia Q., 226 AD2d 755; Matter of Charmaine T., 173 AD2d 625, 627). “The parent who has been prohibited from direct contact with the child [ren], in the child [ren]’s best interest, continues to have an obligation to maintain contact with the person [s] having legal custody of the child [ren] (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [2] [a]). Failure to do so is a clear manifestation of an intent to forego parental obligations to the children]” (Matter of Paul S., 170 Misc 2d [817]*817750, 753; see also, Matter of Ulysses T., 87 AD2d 998, 999, affd 66 NY2d 773). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Adoption.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 816, 695 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bambi-c-v-michial-f-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack