In re Adrian M.

270 A.D.2d 93, 704 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2808
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 93 (In re Adrian M.) 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 Adrian M., 270 A.D.2d 93, 704 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Orders of disposition (two papers), Family Court, Bronx County (Marjorie Fields, J.), entered on or about January 26, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect against respondent mother, terminated her parental rights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Com[94]*94missioner of Social Services for the City of New York for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports Family Court’s determination that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts, respondent permanently neglected the subject children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 373). Petitioner devised a three-part plan aimed at reuniting respondent with the children; respondent was counseled, referred to a therapy program, court-ordered as a result of a prior finding of abuse, and was advised of the importance of remaining in therapy. She, however, was evasive and uncooperative, and attended irregularly. The record does not support respondent’s contention that she advised her caseworker of the reasons for her irregular attendance. On the contrary, respondent insisted that she was regularly attending. Moreover, the record shows that respondent was resistant to therapy, refusing to come to terms with the reason why she was ordered to attend. Respondent’s inability, since 1993, to gain insight into her behavior cannot be blamed on the agency (Matter of Chianti FF., 205 AD2d 849, 851), nor was the agency obligated to accommodate her lack of insight by formulating an alternative plan (see, Matter of Michelle F., 222 AD2d 747, 749). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

In re Shady Gandhi Shameseldin I.
26 A.D.3d 168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Rena Elaine M.
22 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Kenneth Dayshawn J.
16 A.D.3d 158 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Lamar D.
9 A.D.3d 277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Safiya M.
309 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Curtis Kayvon C.
305 A.D.2d 139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Davon Jamel W.
303 A.D.2d 213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Joseph Emmanuel N.
292 A.D.2d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Taquan S.
291 A.D.2d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Custody & Guardianship of La'Asia S.
191 Misc. 2d 28 (NYC Family Court, 2002)
In re Armanda Jenny O.
287 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D.2d 93, 704 N.Y.S.2d 247, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-adrian-m-nyappdiv-2000.