In re Mitchell Kirkland P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mitchell Kirkland P.

201 A.D.2d 381, 607 N.Y.S.2d 931

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 381 (In re Mitchell Kirkland 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 Mitchell Kirkland P., 201 A.D.2d 381, 607 N.Y.S.2d 931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 18, 1993, terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights and transferring guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner for the purposes of adoption, following a fact-finding determination that appellant had abandoned the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither appellant’s one letter to petitioner in the six months immediately prior to filing the petition nor his unsubstantiated expressions of interest in the child were sufficient to overcome his longstanding and well established pattern of abandonment (see, Matter of Crawford, 153 AD2d 108; Matter of Dawntal Danielle C., 170 AD2d 375). Incarceration does not, in and of itself, constitute good reason for failure to visit or communicate (Matter of Ulysses T., 87 AD2d 998, affd 66 NY2d 773). The undisputed facts confirm that, despite the opportunity to write and call from prison, appellant made no attempt to contact the child and only limited effort to contact the agency. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, 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 (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about February 18, 1993, terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights and transferring guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner for the purposes of adoption, following a fact-finding determination that appellant had abandoned the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither appellant’s one letter to petitioner in the six months immediately prior to filing the petition nor his unsubstantiated expressions of interest in the child were sufficient to overcome his longstanding and well established pattern of abandonment (see, Matter of Crawford, 153 AD2d 108; Matter of Dawntal Danielle C., 170 AD2d 375). Incarceration does not, in and of itself, constitute good reason for failure to visit or communicate (Matter of Ulysses T., 87 AD2d 998, affd 66 NY2d 773). The undisputed facts confirm that, despite the opportunity to write and call from prison, appellant made no attempt to contact the child and only limited effort to contact the agency. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 381, 607 N.Y.S.2d 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-kirkland-p-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack