In re Jessica C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jessica C.

278 A.D.2d 902, 718 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13651

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 902 (In re Jessica 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 Jessica C., 278 A.D.2d 902, 718 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court’s determination that respondent had permanently neglected her two older children is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to comply with the goals of the case service plan, thereby failing to “ Take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child [ren] from [her] home’ ” (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840, quoting Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 125; see, Matter of Daenetta Saleema Nicole L, 258 AD2d 261, 262, lv denied 93 NY2d 814). The fact that petitioner did not commence a neglect proceeding based on respondent’s care of a third child, born after the two children who are the subject of this proceeding were placed in foster care, does not preclude the court’s determination. The court properly considered the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in concluding that respondent had failed to plan for the future of her two older children despite diligent efforts by petitioner to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, 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’s determination that respondent had permanently neglected her two older children is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to comply with the goals of the case service plan, thereby failing to “ Take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child [ren] from [her] home’ ” (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840, quoting Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 125; see, Matter of Daenetta Saleema Nicole L, 258 AD2d 261, 262, lv denied 93 NY2d 814). The fact that petitioner did not commence a neglect proceeding based on respondent’s care of a third child, born after the two children who are the subject of this proceeding were placed in foster care, does not preclude the court’s determination. The court properly considered the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in concluding that respondent had failed to plan for the future of her two older children despite diligent efforts by petitioner to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 902, 718 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jessica-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack