In re Nadaniel Jackie P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nadaniel Jackie P.

35 A.D.3d 305, 827 N.Y.S.2d 48

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 305 (In re Nadaniel Jackie 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 Nadaniel Jackie P., 35 A.D.3d 305, 827 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2004, which, upon a finding of mental illness, as defined in Social Services Law § 384-b, terminated appellant’s parental rights to the subject child, and committed 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.

Clear and convincing evidence established that appellant suffered from mental illness, as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) and (6) (a). The agency presented uncontroverted testimony from a psychological expert who found that appellant suffered from schizoaffective disorder, and that that condition rendered her incapable of caring for the subject child then and for the foreseeable future (see Matter of Emmanuel B., 277 AD2d 121 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]; Matter of Gilberto D., 207 AD2d 706 [1994]). Termination of appellant’s parental rights was proper inasmuch as adoption represents the child’s only prospect of a permanent, stable and nurturing familial disposition (see Matter of Monica Betzy D., 291 AD2d 289 [2002]) This is not a case in which adoption would, because of the age or opposition of the child, serve no useful purpose (compare Matter of Donelle Thomas M., 4 AD3d 137, 138 [2004]; Matter of Miguel Angel Andrew R., 263 AD2d 354 [1999]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2004, which, upon a finding of mental illness, as defined in Social Services Law § 384-b, terminated appellant’s parental rights to the subject child, and committed 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.

Clear and convincing evidence established that appellant suffered from mental illness, as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) and (6) (a). The agency presented uncontroverted testimony from a psychological expert who found that appellant suffered from schizoaffective disorder, and that that condition rendered her incapable of caring for the subject child then and for the foreseeable future (see Matter of Emmanuel B., 277 AD2d 121 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 704 [2001]; Matter of Gilberto D., 207 AD2d 706 [1994]). Termination of appellant’s parental rights was proper inasmuch as adoption represents the child’s only prospect of a permanent, stable and nurturing familial disposition (see Matter of Monica Betzy D., 291 AD2d 289 [2002]) This is not a case in which adoption would, because of the age or opposition of the child, serve no useful purpose (compare Matter of Donelle Thomas M., 4 AD3d 137, 138 [2004]; Matter of Miguel Angel Andrew R., 263 AD2d 354 [1999]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 305, 827 N.Y.S.2d 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nadaniel-jackie-p-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack