In re Devina S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Devina S.

24 A.D.3d 188, 808 N.Y.S.2d 159

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 188 (In re Devina S.) 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 Devina S., 24 A.D.3d 188, 808 N.Y.S.2d 159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, in child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, upon findings of abuse against respondent, placed his daughter, Devina S., in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for placement with Administration for Children’s Services, and directed that respondent was not to visit with the child until certain conditions were satisfied, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 30, 2001, and on or about February 19, 2002, finding that respondent had abused the subject children and prohibiting the children from visiting with respondent in a correctional facility without court approval, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent dispositional order.

[189]*189Respondent’s abuse of the subject children was established by proof demonstrating that he murdered the children’s mother in the children’s home while they were present (see Matter of Jayvon L., 18 AD3d 292 [2005]). Respondent’s contention that the abuse finding is not sustainable respecting the children not biologically related to him because he was not a person legally responsible for their care is without merit. The proof, including transcripts of respondent’s testimony from the trial at which he was convicted of the murder of the children’s mother, established, as a matter of law, that respondent was, in fact, a person legally responsible for the children’s care (see Matter of Faith GG., 179 AD2d 901 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 752 [1992]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining argument challenging the court’s conditional denial of visitation with Devina S., and find it meritless. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about May 29, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, in child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, upon findings of abuse against respondent, placed his daughter, Devina S., in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for placement with Administration for Children’s Services, and directed that respondent was not to visit with the child until certain conditions were satisfied, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 30, 2001, and on or about February 19, 2002, finding that respondent had abused the subject children and prohibiting the children from visiting with respondent in a correctional facility without court approval, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent dispositional order.

[189]*189Respondent’s abuse of the subject children was established by proof demonstrating that he murdered the children’s mother in the children’s home while they were present (see Matter of Jayvon L., 18 AD3d 292 [2005]). Respondent’s contention that the abuse finding is not sustainable respecting the children not biologically related to him because he was not a person legally responsible for their care is without merit. The proof, including transcripts of respondent’s testimony from the trial at which he was convicted of the murder of the children’s mother, established, as a matter of law, that respondent was, in fact, a person legally responsible for the children’s care (see Matter of Faith GG., 179 AD2d 901 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 752 [1992]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining argument challenging the court’s conditional denial of visitation with Devina S., and find it meritless. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 188, 808 N.Y.S.2d 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-devina-s-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack