In re Diana S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Diana S

68 A.D.2d 915, 414 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11163

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 68 A.D.2d 915 (In re Diana 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 Diana S, 68 A.D.2d 915, 414 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In child neglect proceedings pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, petitioner appeals from two orders (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated April 12, 1977, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions. Orders reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, petitions granted and proceedings remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith. In our opinion, the natural parents, who are not living together, failed to take adequate steps to plan for the future of the two children involved herein (see Matter of Orlando F., 40 NY2d 103). Moreover, on the record before us, the evidence establishes that the petitioner made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. Even if there had been a failure of the petitioner to meet the foregoing standard, the best interests of the children would be served by termination of the respondents’ right to custody (see Matter of Nicolle "RR”, 51 AD2d 823). Thus, the mere fact that the respondents have a "strong desire” to maintain contact with their two children is insufficient, in and of itself, to maké up for the fact that they have utterly failed to take the necessary steps to insure that the children would have an adequate home life if returned to them (see Matter of Orlando F., supra, p 110). Moreover, the evidence establishes that both children are very happy and well-adjusted to their foster parents, who have declared their desire to adopt the children. In addition, the Family Court Judge erred by admitting into evidence testimony as to matters occurring subsequent to the filing of the petitions (see Family Ct Act, § 624). O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

In child neglect proceedings pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, petitioner appeals from two orders (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated April 12, 1977, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petitions. Orders reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, petitions granted and proceedings remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith. In our opinion, the natural parents, who are not living together, failed to take adequate steps to plan for the future of the two children involved herein (see Matter of Orlando F., 40 NY2d 103). Moreover, on the record before us, the evidence establishes that the petitioner made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. Even if there had been a failure of the petitioner to meet the foregoing standard, the best interests of the children would be served by termination of the respondents’ right to custody (see Matter of Nicolle "RR”, 51 AD2d 823). Thus, the mere fact that the respondents have a "strong desire” to maintain contact with their two children is insufficient, in and of itself, to maké up for the fact that they have utterly failed to take the necessary steps to insure that the children would have an adequate home life if returned to them (see Matter of Orlando F., supra, p 110). Moreover, the evidence establishes that both children are very happy and well-adjusted to their foster parents, who have declared their desire to adopt the children. In addition, the Family Court Judge erred by admitting into evidence testimony as to matters occurring subsequent to the filing of the petitions (see Family Ct Act, § 624). O’Connor, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.2d 915, 414 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-diana-s-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack