In re Atina C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Atina C.

234 A.D.2d 997, 652 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13814

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 997 (In re Atina C.) 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 Atina C., 234 A.D.2d 997, 652 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The evidence supports Family Court’s determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148; Matter of Noele D., 209 AD2d 828, 829). [998]*998From the time the child was removed from the home in 1989 until the dispositional hearing, respondent remained unable to plan for the child’s future or to provide a stable and suitable home (see, Matter of Jonathon Jesus B., 189 AD2d 653). Although petitioner did not establish the likelihood that the child would be placed for adoption, the court nevertheless properly determined that the best interests of the child would be promoted by transferring her guardianship and custody to petitioner (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [i]). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Hedges, J.— Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr 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: The evidence supports Family Court’s determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148; Matter of Noele D., 209 AD2d 828, 829). [998]*998From the time the child was removed from the home in 1989 until the dispositional hearing, respondent remained unable to plan for the child’s future or to provide a stable and suitable home (see, Matter of Jonathon Jesus B., 189 AD2d 653). Although petitioner did not establish the likelihood that the child would be placed for adoption, the court nevertheless properly determined that the best interests of the child would be promoted by transferring her guardianship and custody to petitioner (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [i]). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Hedges, J.— Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 997, 652 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-atina-c-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack