In re Chad R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Chad R.

206 A.D.2d 924, 616 N.Y.S.2d 294

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 924 (In re Chad R.) 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 Chad R., 206 A.D.2d 924, 616 N.Y.S.2d 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject respondent’s contention that petitioner failed to provide assistance and services tailored to meet the needs of respondent or that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it made diligent efforts to reunite respondent and her child. Petitioner’s efforts were repeatedly frustrated by respondent’s failure to visit the child or to participate in services that were provided by the agency and by respondent’s frequent relocation to distant locales in New York and in other States (cf., Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385; Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425). Thus, we affirm the finding of permanent neglect for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court following the fact-finding hearing. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Taddeo, J.—Permanent Neglect.) Present—Balio, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject respondent’s contention that petitioner failed to provide assistance and services tailored to meet the needs of respondent or that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it made diligent efforts to reunite respondent and her child. Petitioner’s efforts were repeatedly frustrated by respondent’s failure to visit the child or to participate in services that were provided by the agency and by respondent’s frequent relocation to distant locales in New York and in other States (cf., Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385; Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425). Thus, we affirm the finding of permanent neglect for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court following the fact-finding hearing. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Taddeo, J.—Permanent Neglect.) Present—Balio, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 924, 616 N.Y.S.2d 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chad-r-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack