In re Darzell Levar D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Darzell Levar D.

6 A.D.3d 239, 774 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4503

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

DecidedApril 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 239 (In re Darzell Levar D.) 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 Darzell Levar D., 6 A.D.3d 239, 774 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara Schecter, J.), entered on or about August 30, 2002, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for the child’s future (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c]). Although the agency, during the statutorily relevant period, diligently endeavored to assist respondent to address the problems precluding her resumption of custodial parenting responsibilities (see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]), she failed to meet two crucial agency plan conditions: she did not regularly attend therapy and neither enrolled in school nor found employment.

The evidence was preponderant (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating respondent’s parental rights so as to facilitate the child’s adoption by his long-term foster family. A suspended judgment was not warranted since [240]*240there was no showing that respondent had, even belatedly, made sufficient substantive progress to formulate a realistic, feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for her son (id. at 142-143). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan 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 (Sara Schecter, J.), entered on or about August 30, 2002, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for the child’s future (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c]). Although the agency, during the statutorily relevant period, diligently endeavored to assist respondent to address the problems precluding her resumption of custodial parenting responsibilities (see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]), she failed to meet two crucial agency plan conditions: she did not regularly attend therapy and neither enrolled in school nor found employment.

The evidence was preponderant (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating respondent’s parental rights so as to facilitate the child’s adoption by his long-term foster family. A suspended judgment was not warranted since [240]*240there was no showing that respondent had, even belatedly, made sufficient substantive progress to formulate a realistic, feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for her son (id. at 142-143). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 239, 774 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-darzell-levar-d-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack