In re Rosalinda R.

16 A.D.3d 1063, 791 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2873
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 1063 (In re Rosalinda R.) 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 Rosalinda R., 16 A.D.3d 1063, 791 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[1064]*1064Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered January 16, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated respondent’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent abandoned his child by failing to visit or communicate with her during the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition and in addition that he failed to communicate with petitioner during that period of time (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Ariel C., 248 AD2d 976 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 801 [1998]). Contrary to the contention of respondent, he failed to show that his educational, financial and language difficulties constitute “good reason for failing to visit or otherwise contact the child[ ]” (Matter of Dahata R., 278 AD2d 894, 894 [2000]). The incarceration of respondent during the final two months of the six-month period does not constitute a reasonable excuse for his failure to communicate with his child or petitioner during that two-month period (see Ariel C., 248 AD2d at 976-977). Finally, respondent did not request a suspended judgment (see Matter of Latoya P., 308 AD2d 402 [2003]), and thus we conclude that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that Family Court should have issued a suspended judgment. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

G., ATREYU, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
In re Atreyu G.
91 A.D.3d 1342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Shadazia W.
48 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Charles B.
46 A.D.3d 1430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Anthony T.
35 A.D.3d 1201 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bryce R.W. v. Orleans County Department of Social Services
32 A.D.3d 1312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Danielle M.
26 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Nathaniel W.
24 A.D.3d 1240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 1063, 791 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosalinda-r-nyappdiv-2005.