In re Javon Reginald G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Javon Reginald G.

89 A.D.3d 456, 931 N.Y.2d 870

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 456 (In re Javon Reginald G.) 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 Javon Reginald G., 89 A.D.3d 456, 931 N.Y.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[457]*457The consent of respondent to the adoption of the subject child was not required since he did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]). Respondent admittedly provided no financial support for the child, and the record does not contain any objective evidence of efforts to visit or communicate with the child (see Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [Marc E.G.], 74 AD3d 689 [2010]; Matter of Chandel B., 58 AD3d 547 [2009]). His incarceration does not absolve him of his responsibility for supporting the child or for maintaining regular contact (see Matter of Bryant Angel Malik J. [Bryant J.], 76 AD3d 936 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 61 AD3d 448 [2009]).

The court’s determination that the child’s best interests would be served by adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The child has lived with his foster parents since he was one month old, and the foster parents, who have provided the child with a loving and nurturing home, have been attentive to the child’s developmental and extraordinary medical needs (see Matter of Joshua Jezreel M. [Dennis M.], 80 AD3d 538 [2011]; Matter of Joaquin Enrique C. [Anna Julia F.], 79 AD3d 548 [2010]). We have considered and rejected respondent’s additional arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[457]*457The consent of respondent to the adoption of the subject child was not required since he did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]). Respondent admittedly provided no financial support for the child, and the record does not contain any objective evidence of efforts to visit or communicate with the child (see Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [Marc E.G.], 74 AD3d 689 [2010]; Matter of Chandel B., 58 AD3d 547 [2009]). His incarceration does not absolve him of his responsibility for supporting the child or for maintaining regular contact (see Matter of Bryant Angel Malik J. [Bryant J.], 76 AD3d 936 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 61 AD3d 448 [2009]).

The court’s determination that the child’s best interests would be served by adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The child has lived with his foster parents since he was one month old, and the foster parents, who have provided the child with a loving and nurturing home, have been attentive to the child’s developmental and extraordinary medical needs (see Matter of Joshua Jezreel M. [Dennis M.], 80 AD3d 538 [2011]; Matter of Joaquin Enrique C. [Anna Julia F.], 79 AD3d 548 [2010]). We have considered and rejected respondent’s additional arguments. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 456, 931 N.Y.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-javon-reginald-g-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack