In re Cheyanne M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cheyanne M.

299 A.D.2d 162, 753 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 162 (In re Cheyanne M.) 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 Cheyanne M., 299 A.D.2d 162, 753 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 8, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondents’ parental rights to the subject child, committed the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, and, insofar as appealed from, made no provision for postadoption contact between respondents and the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While postadoption contact is permitted in the context of a surrender agreement pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c, it remains that “open adoption” is not a dispositional option in the context of a termination proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (see Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 91; Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d 651, 667). Accordingly, Family Court properly refused to consider it. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 8, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondents’ parental rights to the subject child, committed the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, and, insofar as appealed from, made no provision for postadoption contact between respondents and the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While postadoption contact is permitted in the context of a surrender agreement pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c, it remains that “open adoption” is not a dispositional option in the context of a termination proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (see Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 91; Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d 651, 667). Accordingly, Family Court properly refused to consider it. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 162, 753 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cheyanne-m-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack