In re Adonis Earl S.

14 A.D.3d 614, 787 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 556
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 24, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 614 (In re Adonis Earl S.) 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 Adonis Earl S., 14 A.D.3d 614, 787 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), entered October 6, 2003, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship rights to the Suffolk [615]*615County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence of the father’s abandonment of his child during the six-month period before the filing of the petition. There was a total absence of contact between the father and the child during this period, although the father was not prevented or discouraged by the petitioner from having contact (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [b]; Matter of Annette B., 2 AD3d 721, 722 [2003]; Matter of Derrick J., 287 AD2d 503 [2001]).

The father testified, with reference to his abandonment of his child, that an order of protection, which he failed to produce, directed him to stay away from his child. This did not prevent him from contacting or communicating with the petitioner, and his incarceration was no excuse for failing to contact his child by telephone or by letter (see Matter of Jahmir Domevlo J., 8 AD3d 280, 281 [2004]; Matter of Derrick J., supra; Matter of Ronald D., 282 AD2d 533 [2001]).

The record indicates that the father was provided effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Thomas Z., 4 AD3d 372, 373 [2004]). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Kaheem Jamal T.
66 A.D.3d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Jessica Leslie A.
61 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Kathleen H.
39 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 A.D.3d 614, 787 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-adonis-earl-s-nyappdiv-2005.