In re Bea C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bea C.

241 A.D.2d 331, 659 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7038

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1997·Published

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about June 9, 1995, terminating respondent’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court’s findings that respondent did not cooperate with petitioner’s numerous attempts to enroll her in various drug rehabilitation programs and parenting skills classes (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 144), and a preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s findings that the children’s best interests require termination of respondent’s parental rights in order to make them available for adoption (see, supra, at 148; Matter of Celeste M., 180 AD2d 437, 438). Such efforts as respondent made toward rehabilitation after her visitation rights had been suspended were too little and too late (see, Matter of Todd Anthony C., 220 AD2d 206; Matter of Latesha Nicole M., 219 AD2d 521, 522). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about June 9, 1995, terminating respondent’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court’s findings that respondent did not cooperate with petitioner’s numerous attempts to enroll her in various drug rehabilitation programs and parenting skills classes (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 144), and a preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court’s findings that the children’s best interests require termination of respondent’s parental rights in order to make them available for adoption (see, supra, at 148; Matter of Celeste M., 180 AD2d 437, 438). Such efforts as respondent made toward rehabilitation after her visitation rights had been suspended were too little and too late (see, Matter of Todd Anthony C., 220 AD2d 206; Matter of Latesha Nicole M., 219 AD2d 521, 522). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

In re Bea C., 241 A.D.2d 331, 659 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

241 A.D.2d 331 (In re Bea C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related