In re Dahata R.

278 A.D.2d 894, 718 N.Y.S.2d 693, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13551
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent mother (respondent) abandoned her four children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]). Contrary to the contention of respondent, the evidence does not establish that petitioner prevented or discouraged her from contacting her children or visiting with them (see, Matter of Nicole P., 275 AD2d 952; Matter of Howard R., 258 AD2d 893, 894). Furthermore, respondent failed to show that she had good reason for failing to visit or otherwise contact the children. Respondent failed to establish that her alleged health problems and other hardships “permeated [her] life to such an extent that contact was not feasible” (Matter of Catholic Child Care Socy., 112 AD2d 1039, 1040). We conclude that Family Court did not abuse its discretion by immediately terminating respondent’s parental rights without conducting a dispositional hearing (see, Matter of Howard R., supra, at 894). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Szczur, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

In re Dahata R., 278 A.D.2d 894, 718 N.Y.S.2d 693, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 894 (In re Dahata R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

T., MADELYNN, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
In re Madelynn T.
148 A.D.3d 1784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
In re Rosalinda R.
16 A.D.3d 1063 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)