In re Michael D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michael D.

306 A.D.2d 938, 761 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6764

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 938 (In re Michael D.) 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 Michael D., 306 A.D.2d 938, 761 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered April 10, 2002, which terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights. Petitioner met its burden of estabhshing by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for his children by reason of mental illness or mental retardation (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a], [b]; Matter of Dylan K, 269 AD2d 826 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 766 [2000]; Matter of Casey J., 251 AD2d 1002 [1998]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner was not required to establish that it made reasonable or diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parental relationship where, as here, the termination of parental rights is sought based on mental illness or mental retardation (see Matter of Harry K., 270 AD2d 928 [2000]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered April 10, 2002, which terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights. Petitioner met its burden of estabhshing by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for his children by reason of mental illness or mental retardation (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a], [b]; Matter of Dylan K, 269 AD2d 826 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 766 [2000]; Matter of Casey J., 251 AD2d 1002 [1998]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner was not required to establish that it made reasonable or diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parental relationship where, as here, the termination of parental rights is sought based on mental illness or mental retardation (see Matter of Harry K., 270 AD2d 928 [2000]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 938, 761 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-d-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack