In re Mary-Athena A.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mary-Athena A.C.

19 A.D.3d 140, 796 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5991

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

DecidedJune 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 140 (In re Mary-Athena A.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 Mary-Athena A.C., 19 A.D.3d 140, 796 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[141]*141Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 1, 2004, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s failure to cooperate with the agency’s diligent efforts to assist him to visit with the subject child regularly and to address numerous personal problems standing in the way of his assuming custodial parenting responsibilities for the child. Nor was respondent receptive to the agency’s efforts to help him acquire the skills needed to meet the child’s special needs (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 144 [1984]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that the child’s adoption by a nurturing foster mother with whom she has resided since infancy is in her best interests (see id. at 147-148). Respondent’s request for a suspended judgment was properly denied since there was no evidence that he had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child (see Matter of Charlene Lashay J., 280 AD2d 320 [2001]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[141]*141Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 1, 2004, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s failure to cooperate with the agency’s diligent efforts to assist him to visit with the subject child regularly and to address numerous personal problems standing in the way of his assuming custodial parenting responsibilities for the child. Nor was respondent receptive to the agency’s efforts to help him acquire the skills needed to meet the child’s special needs (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 144 [1984]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that the child’s adoption by a nurturing foster mother with whom she has resided since infancy is in her best interests (see id. at 147-148). Respondent’s request for a suspended judgment was properly denied since there was no evidence that he had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child (see Matter of Charlene Lashay J., 280 AD2d 320 [2001]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 140, 796 N.Y.S.2d 355, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mary-athena-ac-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack