In re Anthony T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anthony T.

35 A.D.3d 1201, 826 N.Y.S.2d 874

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 1201 (In re Anthony T.) 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 Anthony T., 35 A.D.3d 1201, 826 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Romano, J.), entered December 19, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated respondent’s parental rights and committed the guardianship and custody of respondent’s three children to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent abandoned her children by failing to visit them or communicate with them or petitioner during the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; Matter of Ariel C., 248 AD2d 976 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 801 [1998]). Neither respondent’s incarceration nor the participation of respondent in an inpatient drug rehabilitation program during portions of the six-month period excuse her failure to communicate with the children or petitioner (see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]; Matter of Jovantay U., 298 AD2d 641, 642 [2002]). Family Court properly determined that respondent’s filing of a visitation petition near [1202]*1202the conclusion of the six-month period did not preclude a finding of abandonment (see Matter of Alexander V., 179 AD2d 913, 914 [1992]; see generally Matter of Crawford, 153 AD2d 108, 110-111 [1990]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Romano, J.), entered December 19, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated respondent’s parental rights and committed the guardianship and custody of respondent’s three children to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent abandoned her children by failing to visit them or communicate with them or petitioner during the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; Matter of Ariel C., 248 AD2d 976 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 801 [1998]). Neither respondent’s incarceration nor the participation of respondent in an inpatient drug rehabilitation program during portions of the six-month period excuse her failure to communicate with the children or petitioner (see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]; Matter of Jovantay U., 298 AD2d 641, 642 [2002]). Family Court properly determined that respondent’s filing of a visitation petition near [1202]*1202the conclusion of the six-month period did not preclude a finding of abandonment (see Matter of Alexander V., 179 AD2d 913, 914 [1992]; see generally Matter of Crawford, 153 AD2d 108, 110-111 [1990]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 1201, 826 N.Y.S.2d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthony-t-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack