In re Charles W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charles W.

90 A.D.2d 812, 455 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19044

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1982·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the natural mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated June 12, 1981, which, upon a determination that the subject infant is permanently neglected, terminated her parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the infant to the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of Rockland County. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing whereat the fact-finding determination shall be by a standard of clear and convincing evidence. Questions of fact have not been considered. For the reasons expressed in this court’s decision of Matter of Rose Marie M. (90 AD2d 810), the matter must be remanded for a hearing in accordance with the new standard of proof. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the natural mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.), dated June 12, 1981, which, upon a determination that the subject infant is permanently neglected, terminated her parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the infant to the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of Rockland County. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing whereat the fact-finding determination shall be by a standard of clear and convincing evidence. Questions of fact have not been considered. For the reasons expressed in this court’s decision of Matter of Rose Marie M. (90 AD2d 810), the matter must be remanded for a hearing in accordance with the new standard of proof. Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

In re Charles W., 90 A.D.2d 812, 455 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

90 A.D.2d 812 (In re Charles W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related