In Re R.M. Catholic Guardian Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Re R.M. Catholic Guardian Services

2017 NY Slip Op 1209, 147 A.D.3d 953, 48 N.Y.S.3d 414

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2017

Docket2015-10644

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1209 (In Re R.M. Catholic Guardian Services) 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 R.M. Catholic Guardian Services, 2017 NY Slip Op 1209, 147 A.D.3d 953, 48 N.Y.S.3d 414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*954 Appeal by the mother from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Mary O’Donoghue, J.), dated October 2, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child jointly to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and Catholic Guardian Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the mother permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for her return after her placement in foster care (see Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel R.], 124 AD3d 657, 657-658 [2015]). Among other things, the mother failed to gain any insight into the reason the child was placed in foster care, failed to regularly take the child to therapy appointments or ensure that the child was given her medication when the child was in her care on a trial basis, and failed to engage in family therapy. The record also demonstrates that the petitioner made diligent efforts to help the mother comply with her service plan, but that the mother failed to engage in the services to which she was referred (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel, R.J, 124 AD3d at 658). The court also properly determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest (see Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel R.], 124 AD3d at 658; Matter of Kaydance H.G. [Carmen M.], 122 AD3d 630, 631 [2014]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit (see Matter of Vaughn M.S. [Patricia C.S.], 144 AD3d 811, 813 [2016]; Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel R.], 124 AD3d at 658).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

*954 Appeal by the mother from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Mary O’Donoghue, J.), dated October 2, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child jointly to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and Catholic Guardian Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the mother permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for her return after her placement in foster care (see Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel R.], 124 AD3d 657, 657-658 [2015]). Among other things, the mother failed to gain any insight into the reason the child was placed in foster care, failed to regularly take the child to therapy appointments or ensure that the child was given her medication when the child was in her care on a trial basis, and failed to engage in family therapy. The record also demonstrates that the petitioner made diligent efforts to help the mother comply with her service plan, but that the mother failed to engage in the services to which she was referred (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel, R.J, 124 AD3d at 658). The court also properly determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest (see Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel R.], 124 AD3d at 658; Matter of Kaydance H.G. [Carmen M.], 122 AD3d 630, 631 [2014]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit (see Matter of Vaughn M.S. [Patricia C.S.], 144 AD3d 811, 813 [2016]; Matter of Angel M.R.J. [Rachel R.], 124 AD3d at 658).

Balkin, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1209, 147 A.D.3d 953, 48 N.Y.S.3d 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rm-catholic-guardian-services-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack