In re Harry K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Harry K.

270 A.D.2d 928, 706 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 928 (In re Harry K.) 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 Harry K., 270 A.D.2d 928, 706 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) by reason of mental illness and mental retardation. Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence establishing that respondent suffers from mental illness and retardation and that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of her condition, to care adequately for her disabled children (see, Matter of Abby B., 269 AD2d 819). Contrary to respondent’s contention, it was not necessary for petitioner to prove that it engaged in diligent efforts to encourage, strengthen and nurture the parent-child relationship (see, Matter of Juliana V., 249 AD2d 314). Furthermore, a separate dispositional hearing was not necessary because “the best interests of the child [ren] are subsumed in the initial fact-finding determination as to whether the child[ren] could be returned to [their] home in the foreseeable future” (Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39, 49). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J.— Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.)

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) by reason of mental illness and mental retardation. Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence establishing that respondent suffers from mental illness and retardation and that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of her condition, to care adequately for her disabled children (see, Matter of Abby B., 269 AD2d 819). Contrary to respondent’s contention, it was not necessary for petitioner to prove that it engaged in diligent efforts to encourage, strengthen and nurture the parent-child relationship (see, Matter of Juliana V., 249 AD2d 314). Furthermore, a separate dispositional hearing was not necessary because “the best interests of the child [ren] are subsumed in the initial fact-finding determination as to whether the child[ren] could be returned to [their] home in the foreseeable future” (Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39, 49). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J.— Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 928, 706 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harry-k-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack