In re James R. F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re James R. F.

261 A.D.2d 963, 689 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 963 (In re James R. F.) 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 James R. F., 261 A.D.2d 963, 689 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly determined that respondent permanently neglected his son, and that it was in the best interests of the child to transfer his care and custody to petitioner (see, Family Ct Act § 631). Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen and nurture the parent-child relationship by providing personal, marital and substance abuse counseling, and in-home parenting skills training, and by fostering visitation and providing transportation for visitation (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 86-87; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142). Further, petitioner established that respondent did not cooperate in counseling and parenting classes, continued to use marihuana, did not either terminate or stabilize his relationship with the child’s mother, and did not formulate a plan for the child’s care while respondent worked on the carnival circuit. Thus, respondent failed to make a realistic plan for the future of his son (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Gregory B., supra, at 87; Matter of Star Leslie W., supra, at 142-143). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Balio, 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 determined that respondent permanently neglected his son, and that it was in the best interests of the child to transfer his care and custody to petitioner (see, Family Ct Act § 631). Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen and nurture the parent-child relationship by providing personal, marital and substance abuse counseling, and in-home parenting skills training, and by fostering visitation and providing transportation for visitation (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 86-87; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142). Further, petitioner established that respondent did not cooperate in counseling and parenting classes, continued to use marihuana, did not either terminate or stabilize his relationship with the child’s mother, and did not formulate a plan for the child’s care while respondent worked on the carnival circuit. Thus, respondent failed to make a realistic plan for the future of his son (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Gregory B., supra, at 87; Matter of Star Leslie W., supra, at 142-143). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 963, 689 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-james-r-f-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack