In re Isis S.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Isis S.C.

88 A.D.3d 602, 931 N.Y.2d 302

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 602 (In re Isis S.C.) 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 Isis S.C., 88 A.D.3d 602, 931 N.Y.2d 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[603]*603Respondent’s consent to the child’s adoption was not required because respondent did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” and failed to provide support for her while she was in foster care (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Norman Christian K., 60 AD3d 542 [2009]). Respondent was neither relieved of his responsibility to support and maintain regular communication with the child by his repeated incarceration nor excused from paying financial support by the fact that the agency did not instruct him to do so (Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [Marc E.G.], 74 AD3d 689 [2010]). His belated expressions of interest in visiting with the child are insufficient after many years in which he had no contact with his child. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

[603]*603Respondent’s consent to the child’s adoption was not required because respondent did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” and failed to provide support for her while she was in foster care (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Norman Christian K., 60 AD3d 542 [2009]). Respondent was neither relieved of his responsibility to support and maintain regular communication with the child by his repeated incarceration nor excused from paying financial support by the fact that the agency did not instruct him to do so (Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [Marc E.G.], 74 AD3d 689 [2010]). His belated expressions of interest in visiting with the child are insufficient after many years in which he had no contact with his child. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 602, 931 N.Y.2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-isis-sc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack