In re Jasiah T.-V.S.J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jasiah T.-V.S.J.

112 A.D.3d 717, 976 N.Y.S.2d 412

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 717 (In re Jasiah T.-V.S.J.) 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 Jasiah T.-V.S.J., 112 A.D.3d 717, 976 N.Y.S.2d 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the father appeals from an order of

[718]*718the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated September 24, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner’s motion for a determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 AD3d 937 [2012]). The father, an out-of-wedlock father whose child had been placed with an adoptive parent more than six months after his birth, failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with him (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Robert O. v Russell K., 80 NY2d 254, 264 [1992]; Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 NY2d 1090, 1091 [1985]; Matter of Michael A.B. [Richard A.B.], 98 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2012]; Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 AD3d 937 [2012]; Matter of Charle Chiedu E. [Chiedu E.], 87 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2011]). Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the father appeals from an order of

[718]*718the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), dated September 24, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the petitioner’s motion for a determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 AD3d 937 [2012]). The father, an out-of-wedlock father whose child had been placed with an adoptive parent more than six months after his birth, failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with him (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Robert O. v Russell K., 80 NY2d 254, 264 [1992]; Matter of Andrew Peter H.T., 64 NY2d 1090, 1091 [1985]; Matter of Michael A.B. [Richard A.B.], 98 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2012]; Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 AD3d 937 [2012]; Matter of Charle Chiedu E. [Chiedu E.], 87 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2011]). Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 717, 976 N.Y.S.2d 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jasiah-t-vsj-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack