In re Saafir M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Saafir M.

17 A.D.3d 1100, 793 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4524

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1100 (In re Saafir M.) 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 Saafir M., 17 A.D.3d 1100, 793 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered September 25, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent’s child has been permanently neglected by respondent.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. Respondent admitted that he permanently neglected the child, and the evidence at the dispositional hearing established that he lacked “a realistic, feasible plan for the child’s future care” (Matter of Tyreese H., 4 AD3d 208, 209 [2004]). In addition, the evidence at the dispositional hearing established that the best interests of the child would be served by allowing the adoption process to move forward (see Matter of Gina I., 270 AD2d 21 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 756 [2000]). Thus, contrary to respondent’s contention, the court properly determined that a suspended judgment is not an appropriate disposition (see Matter of Trisha K., 9 AD3d 900, 901 [2004]). Finally, respondent’s contentions with respect to matters relating to the proposed adoption and events that occurred subsequent to the dispositional order are not properly before us. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Smith and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered September 25, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent’s child has been permanently neglected by respondent.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. Respondent admitted that he permanently neglected the child, and the evidence at the dispositional hearing established that he lacked “a realistic, feasible plan for the child’s future care” (Matter of Tyreese H., 4 AD3d 208, 209 [2004]). In addition, the evidence at the dispositional hearing established that the best interests of the child would be served by allowing the adoption process to move forward (see Matter of Gina I., 270 AD2d 21 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 756 [2000]). Thus, contrary to respondent’s contention, the court properly determined that a suspended judgment is not an appropriate disposition (see Matter of Trisha K., 9 AD3d 900, 901 [2004]). Finally, respondent’s contentions with respect to matters relating to the proposed adoption and events that occurred subsequent to the dispositional order are not properly before us. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Smith and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1100, 793 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-saafir-m-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack