In re Kimberly B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kimberly B.

285 A.D.2d 982, 726 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6948

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 982 (In re Kimberly B.) 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 Kimberly B., 285 A.D.2d 982, 726 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although respondent has improperly appealed from the fact-finding order rather than the order of disposition, we exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as taken from the order of disposition (see, CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Dakota K., 267 AD2d 1054). We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in terminating her parental rights upon a finding of severe abuse and instead should have issued a suspended judgment (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [f|; Family Ct Act § 633). The record establishes that a suspended judgment would not be in the best interests of the child. Respondent remains reluctant to admit that the abuse occurred and continues to place her own interests above those of her child. Respondent’s therapist testified that, even if respondent progressed in the sex offender treatment program, respondent would be required to participate in the program for at least 2 to 3 years before the child could be returned to her. A suspended judgment, “which is a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” (Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311), is not appropriate in this case. (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Kehoe, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although respondent has improperly appealed from the fact-finding order rather than the order of disposition, we exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as taken from the order of disposition (see, CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Dakota K., 267 AD2d 1054). We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in terminating her parental rights upon a finding of severe abuse and instead should have issued a suspended judgment (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [f|; Family Ct Act § 633). The record establishes that a suspended judgment would not be in the best interests of the child. Respondent remains reluctant to admit that the abuse occurred and continues to place her own interests above those of her child. Respondent’s therapist testified that, even if respondent progressed in the sex offender treatment program, respondent would be required to participate in the program for at least 2 to 3 years before the child could be returned to her. A suspended judgment, “which is a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” (Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311), is not appropriate in this case. (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Kehoe, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 982, 726 N.Y.S.2d 829, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kimberly-b-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack