In re Prudical Antonio D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Prudical Antonio D.

37 A.D.3d 244, 830 N.Y.S.2d 533

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Carol Ann Stokinger, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2004, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and commit[245]*245ted custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of permanent neglect is clear and convincing given respondent mother’s admitted drug use, which required the child’s placement in foster care from the time he was three weeks old, and which has continued despite petitioner’s diligent efforts to help respondent rehabilitate (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of David J., 260 AD2d 279 [1999]; Matter of Selathia Nicole F., 243 AD2d 400 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 806 [1998]; Matter of Lameek L., 226 AD2d 464 [1996]). A preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) shows that the termination of respondent’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Respondent, by reason of inadequately addressed and continuing drug dependency and related reincarceration, will not be able to undertake custodial parenting responsibilities in the near term. Under the circumstances, the child’s best chance for a stable and nurturing familial life lies in his adoption by his foster parent, in whose care he has been since birth, by whom his special needs are addressed, and with whom he has established a loving relationship.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Buckley and Sweeny, 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 (Carol Ann Stokinger, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2004, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and commit[245]*245ted custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of permanent neglect is clear and convincing given respondent mother’s admitted drug use, which required the child’s placement in foster care from the time he was three weeks old, and which has continued despite petitioner’s diligent efforts to help respondent rehabilitate (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of David J., 260 AD2d 279 [1999]; Matter of Selathia Nicole F., 243 AD2d 400 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 806 [1998]; Matter of Lameek L., 226 AD2d 464 [1996]). A preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) shows that the termination of respondent’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Respondent, by reason of inadequately addressed and continuing drug dependency and related reincarceration, will not be able to undertake custodial parenting responsibilities in the near term. Under the circumstances, the child’s best chance for a stable and nurturing familial life lies in his adoption by his foster parent, in whose care he has been since birth, by whom his special needs are addressed, and with whom he has established a loving relationship.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

In re Prudical Antonio D., 37 A.D.3d 244, 830 N.Y.S.2d 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

37 A.D.3d 244 (In re Prudical Antonio D.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related