In re Margaret Jeanette P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Margaret Jeanette P.

30 A.D.3d 359, 818 N.Y.S.2d 71

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

DecidedJune 29, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 359 (In re Margaret Jeanette P.) 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 Margaret Jeanette P., 30 A.D.3d 359, 818 N.Y.S.2d 71 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Family Court, New York County (Helen C. Sturm, J.), entered on or about January 27, 2004, which, after a fact-finding hearing, to the extent appealed from, determined that respondent father’s consent for the placement of his children for adoption was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence established that respondent father failed to provide consistent financial support for his children who were born out of wedlock, and did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact” with them within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d) (see Matter of Maxamillian, 6 AD 3d 349 [2004]). Accordingly, his consent for their adoption was not required. Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Orders, Family Court, New York County (Helen C. Sturm, J.), entered on or about January 27, 2004, which, after a fact-finding hearing, to the extent appealed from, determined that respondent father’s consent for the placement of his children for adoption was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence established that respondent father failed to provide consistent financial support for his children who were born out of wedlock, and did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact” with them within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d) (see Matter of Maxamillian, 6 AD 3d 349 [2004]). Accordingly, his consent for their adoption was not required. Concur—Tom, J.P, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 359, 818 N.Y.S.2d 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-margaret-jeanette-p-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack