In re Marie B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marie B.

249 A.D.2d 159, 671 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4418

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

DecidedApril 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 159 (In re Marie 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 Marie B., 249 A.D.2d 159, 671 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered on or about January 24, 1994, which, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondent’s parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the subject child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court’s finding that respondent repeatedly failed to maintain contact with the child, by arriving substantially late or not at all for 85% of the scheduled visits, despite the agency’s diligent efforts to arrange visitation and to impress upon respondent the importance of punctuality and regularity (see, Matter of O. Children, 128 AD2d 460). We agree with Family Court that the child’s best interests are served by freeing her for adoption. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered on or about January 24, 1994, which, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondent’s parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the subject child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court’s finding that respondent repeatedly failed to maintain contact with the child, by arriving substantially late or not at all for 85% of the scheduled visits, despite the agency’s diligent efforts to arrange visitation and to impress upon respondent the importance of punctuality and regularity (see, Matter of O. Children, 128 AD2d 460). We agree with Family Court that the child’s best interests are served by freeing her for adoption. Concur— Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 159, 671 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marie-b-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack