In re Matthew Thomas H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Matthew Thomas H.

216 A.D.2d 882, 629 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7188

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 882 (In re Matthew Thomas H.) 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 Matthew Thomas H., 216 A.D.2d 882, 629 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly found permanent neglect based upon clear and convincing evidence that, despite diligent efforts by the Department of Social Services (DSS), respondent failed to plan for the future of her child for a period of more than one year following his placement with DSS (see, Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 86-87). Respondent consented to the entry of an order suspending judgment for 12 months, which was thereafter extended for eight months. The proof at the dispositional hearing established that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 314-315). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio, Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly found permanent neglect based upon clear and convincing evidence that, despite diligent efforts by the Department of Social Services (DSS), respondent failed to plan for the future of her child for a period of more than one year following his placement with DSS (see, Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77, 86-87). Respondent consented to the entry of an order suspending judgment for 12 months, which was thereafter extended for eight months. The proof at the dispositional hearing established that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 314-315). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio, Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 882, 629 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-matthew-thomas-h-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack