In re Fernando Alexander B.

85 A.D.3d 658, 925 N.Y.S.2d 823
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 658 (In re Fernando Alexander B.) 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 Fernando Alexander B., 85 A.D.3d 658, 925 N.Y.S.2d 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about June 2, 2009, which, inter alia, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and committed [659]*659custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s failure to plan for the child’s future, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The record shows that the agency met with respondent to review her service plan and discuss the importance of compliance (see Matter of Lady Justice I. , 50 AD3d 425 [2008]). The agency also referred respondent to parenting skills training, mental health therapy, housing assistance agencies, and scheduled regular visits with the child that accommodated her schedule. Despite these diligent efforts, respondent failed to attend therapy, obtain suitable housing or visit with the child on a consistent basis (see Matter of Kevin J., 55 AD3d 468 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 715 [2009]; Matter of William P., 23 AD3d 237 [2005]).

A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the child, who has been living with his foster family for most of his life (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). A suspended judgment was not appropriate under the circumstances, given that the child was thriving in a loving foster home, where his special needs were being met (see Matter of Omar Saheem Ali J. [Matthew J.], 80 AD3d 463 [2011]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of K.Y.Z. (W.Z.)
2024 NY Slip Op 03458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Nautica Skyy W. (Amber NY-Cole W.)
2021 NY Slip Op 05841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Wu-Dao W.Z. (Brandis Ada N.)
2021 NY Slip Op 02888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of A'riana D.N. (Ashley N.)
2018 NY Slip Op 6809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Antonio James L. (Eric David L.--Emily L.)
2017 NY Slip Op 9238 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
In re Angelina Jessie Pierre L.
114 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Jeremiah Emmanuel R.
101 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Justin I. B.
99 A.D.3d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Jada Dorithah Solay McC.
95 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Laqua'sha Renee G.
94 A.D.3d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Ronald Anthony G.
94 A.D.3d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Nadine L.
92 A.D.3d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Hadiyyah J.M. St. Vincent's Services, Inc.
91 A.D.3d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Victor B.
91 A.D.3d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Jamal N.
89 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Nakai H.
89 A.D.3d 434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.3d 658, 925 N.Y.S.2d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fernando-alexander-b-nyappdiv-2011.