In re Donald P.

285 A.D.2d 510, 727 N.Y.S.2d 162
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 9, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 510 (In re Donald P.) 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 Donald P., 285 A.D.2d 510, 727 N.Y.S.2d 162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Westchester County (DiFiore, J.), entered March 2, [511]*5112000, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that she had neglected her son Donald P., and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the same court, entered September 7, 2000, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that she had neglected her son Dale M.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After two separate fact-finding hearings, the Family Court determined that the mother, Gail T., neglected her two sons, Donald P. and Dale M., by failing to exercise a minimum degree of care in supplying them with an education (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [A]). The evidence adduced at those hearings established that despite the fact that both boys had excessive unexcused absences from school and often failed their classes, the mother repeatedly ignored the school’s efforts to contact her, rejected remedial services that were offered, and failed to take any other corrective action. Thus, the presenting agency proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the boys did not regularly attend school and suffered an impairment as a result of their mother’s acts and omissions (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Jennifer N., 173 AD2d 971; Matter of Leslie C., 161 Misc 2d 600).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, there is no evidence in the record to support the claim that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of the amount of compensation paid to her assigned counsel. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Christopher UU.
24 A.D.3d 1129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re David W.
309 A.D.2d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Latoya P.
305 A.D.2d 263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Ruben J.R.
303 A.D.2d 238 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Tamara Liz H.
300 A.D.2d 202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
285 A.D.2d 510, 727 N.Y.S.2d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-donald-p-nyappdiv-2001.