In re Jessey Andrews S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jessey Andrews S.

110 A.D.3d 489, 973 N.Y.S.2d 133

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 489 (In re Jessey Andrews S.) 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 Jessey Andrews S., 110 A.D.3d 489, 973 N.Y.S.2d 133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[490]*490Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2011, which, upon fact-finding determinations that respondent’s consent was not required for the adoption of the subject children and, in the alternative, that respondent permanently neglected the children, terminated respondent’s parental rights and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s finding that respondent’s consent was not required for the adoption of the children (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d], [e]; Matter of Timothy M. [Timothy B.], 79 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2010]). Respondent, who did not live with the children’s mother during the relevant period, admitted that he made no payment toward the support of the children. The small gifts and occasional meals he gave them are insufficient to constitute support (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d] [i]).

The record also supports the court’s alternative finding that respondent permanently neglected the children by failing to plan for their future despite the agency’s diligent efforts to strengthen his relationship with them (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368 [1984]). The case worker testified that the agency made numerous referrals and that respondent refused them, saying that he had completed the services in the past in connection with proceedings to terminate his parental rights to his two other children. Moreover, respondent admitted that he failed to complete the service plan before the petitions were filed.

The record demonstrates that it is in the best interests of the children to be freed for adoption (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299 [1992]). While respondent has failed to address the problems that led to the children’s placement, the foster parents, who want to adopt the children, have provided them with a loving, supportive home in which their special needs are addressed. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

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

[490]*490Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2011, which, upon fact-finding determinations that respondent’s consent was not required for the adoption of the subject children and, in the alternative, that respondent permanently neglected the children, terminated respondent’s parental rights and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the court’s finding that respondent’s consent was not required for the adoption of the children (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d], [e]; Matter of Timothy M. [Timothy B.], 79 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2010]). Respondent, who did not live with the children’s mother during the relevant period, admitted that he made no payment toward the support of the children. The small gifts and occasional meals he gave them are insufficient to constitute support (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d] [i]).

The record also supports the court’s alternative finding that respondent permanently neglected the children by failing to plan for their future despite the agency’s diligent efforts to strengthen his relationship with them (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368 [1984]). The case worker testified that the agency made numerous referrals and that respondent refused them, saying that he had completed the services in the past in connection with proceedings to terminate his parental rights to his two other children. Moreover, respondent admitted that he failed to complete the service plan before the petitions were filed.

The record demonstrates that it is in the best interests of the children to be freed for adoption (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299 [1992]). While respondent has failed to address the problems that led to the children’s placement, the foster parents, who want to adopt the children, have provided them with a loving, supportive home in which their special needs are addressed. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 489, 973 N.Y.S.2d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jessey-andrews-s-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack