In re Angel O.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Angel O.

2 A.D.3d 321, 768 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13674

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2001, terminating respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child upon findings of permanent abandonment and permanent neglect, and committing the child’s custody and guardianship to his present caretaker for the purposes of adoption without need of further notice to appellant putative father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s finding that adoption is in the child’s best interests is supported by ample evidence that neither respondent mother nor appellant, who is incarcerated and whose relationship with the child is admittedly “nonexistent,” is a viable resource, and that the child is happy and doing well in his present home where he resides with his half sister and her father (see Matter of Travis Devon B., 295 AD2d 205, 205-206 [2002]). Appellant’s argument that his consent is required for the child’s adoption is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event without merit, there being no evidence that appellant maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child (Domestic Relations Law § 111). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2001, terminating respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child upon findings of permanent abandonment and permanent neglect, and committing the child’s custody and guardianship to his present caretaker for the purposes of adoption without need of further notice to appellant putative father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s finding that adoption is in the child’s best interests is supported by ample evidence that neither respondent mother nor appellant, who is incarcerated and whose relationship with the child is admittedly “nonexistent,” is a viable resource, and that the child is happy and doing well in his present home where he resides with his half sister and her father (see Matter of Travis Devon B., 295 AD2d 205, 205-206 [2002]). Appellant’s argument that his consent is required for the child’s adoption is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event without merit, there being no evidence that appellant maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child (Domestic Relations Law § 111). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

In re Angel O., 2 A.D.3d 321, 768 N.Y.S.2d 605, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 321 (In re Angel O.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related