In re Crystal K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Crystal K.

204 A.D.2d 105, 611 N.Y.S.2d 528

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

DecidedMay 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 105 (In re Crystal K.) 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 Crystal K., 204 A.D.2d 105, 611 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1991, which terminated respondent’s parental rights upon a finding that he permanently neglected his children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court’s finding that during the four-year period prior to the filing of the petition respondent had only sporadic contact with the [106]*106children and none with the child care agency caseworker, and that he knew or should have known that his children were in kinship foster care with their maternal grandmother since his incarceration did not begin until two years after such placement. Because respondent failed to keep the agency apprised of his whereabouts for at least six months, the agency was not required to make diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [e] [i]), and respondent’s parental rights were properly terminated for permanent neglect (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, 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 (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1991, which terminated respondent’s parental rights upon a finding that he permanently neglected his children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court’s finding that during the four-year period prior to the filing of the petition respondent had only sporadic contact with the [106]*106children and none with the child care agency caseworker, and that he knew or should have known that his children were in kinship foster care with their maternal grandmother since his incarceration did not begin until two years after such placement. Because respondent failed to keep the agency apprised of his whereabouts for at least six months, the agency was not required to make diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [e] [i]), and respondent’s parental rights were properly terminated for permanent neglect (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 105, 611 N.Y.S.2d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-crystal-k-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack