In re Diana G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Diana G.

2 A.D.3d 240, 768 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13280

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2003·Published

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2002, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the subject child and committed the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s drug use contributed to the child’s removal from her home, that respondent only sporadically submitted to random drug tests arranged by the agency as a necessary part of any plan for the return of the [241] child, and that respondent failed to attend almost half of the scheduled visits with the child (see Matter of Makever Carl B., 298 AD2d 303 [2002]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that the child is thriving in her foster care and that her best interests would be served by freeing her for adoption (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The circumstances do not warrant a suspended judgment. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli 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 (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2002, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the subject child and committed the child’s custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s drug use contributed to the child’s removal from her home, that respondent only sporadically submitted to random drug tests arranged by the agency as a necessary part of any plan for the return of the [241] child, and that respondent failed to attend almost half of the scheduled visits with the child (see Matter of Makever Carl B., 298 AD2d 303 [2002]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that the child is thriving in her foster care and that her best interests would be served by freeing her for adoption (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The circumstances do not warrant a suspended judgment. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Sullivan, JJ.

In re Diana G., 2 A.D.3d 240, 768 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 240 (In re Diana G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related