In re Johnathan S.

33 A.D.3d 459, 822 N.Y.S.2d 522
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 19, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 459 (In re Johnathan 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 Johnathan S., 33 A.D.3d 459, 822 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Ruben Martino, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding of abandonment, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioners for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence that respondent had no contact with the child or the agency during the six months preceding the filing of the petition raised a presumption of abandonment, which respondent failed to rebut (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; see Matter of Anthony M., 195 AD2d 315, 315-316 [1993]). Respondent failed to show that there were circumstances rendering contact with the child or agency infeasible, or that she was discouraged from contacting the child by the agency (Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [b]; see Matter of Anthony M., supra). Although respondent claimed to have been homeless and beset by other problems during the relevant time period, she did not show that the purported difficulties so permeated her life as to preclude contact with her child (see id.).

The record amply supports the court’s determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights to the subject child was in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 [460]*460NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The child has foster parents with whom he has bonded and who, in contrast to respondent, have demonstrated that they understand and are able to address the child’s special needs.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, a suspended judgment would not have been appropriate since there was no evidence that appellant had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Jayvon Jose R. (Francisco S.)
2017 NY Slip Op 7526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Jackie Ann W. (Leticia Ann W.)
2017 NY Slip Op 7087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Heaven A. A. (Tyrone W.--Stephanie A.)
130 A.D.3d 10 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Thailique Nashean S.
105 A.D.3d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.3d 459, 822 N.Y.S.2d 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnathan-s-nyappdiv-2006.