In re Shae Tylasia I.M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shae Tylasia I.M.

89 A.D.3d 527, 933 N.Y.2d 9

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 527 (In re Shae Tylasia I.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 Shae Tylasia I.M., 89 A.D.3d 527, 933 N.Y.2d 9 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court-appointed psychiatrist provided clear and convincing evidence that the child was in danger of being neglected due to the mother’s mental retardation (Social Services Law § 384-b [6] [b], [c]; Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 80 AD3d 423, 424 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 708 [2011]). Although the mother completed numerous programs to enhance her parenting and other skills, the psychiatrist noted that there was no improvement in her ability to understand the child’s special needs and properly care for the child.

Under these circumstances, the court did not improvidently decline to conduct a dispositional hearing, which the mother concedes was not required (see Matter of Isaiah J. [Janice J.], 82 AD3d 651, 652 [2011]). There was no evidence that posttermination visitation, if permitted, would be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Corinthian Marie S., 297 AD2d 382 [2002]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The court-appointed psychiatrist provided clear and convincing evidence that the child was in danger of being neglected due to the mother’s mental retardation (Social Services Law § 384-b [6] [b], [c]; Matter of Erica D. [Maria D.], 80 AD3d 423, 424 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 708 [2011]). Although the mother completed numerous programs to enhance her parenting and other skills, the psychiatrist noted that there was no improvement in her ability to understand the child’s special needs and properly care for the child.

Under these circumstances, the court did not improvidently decline to conduct a dispositional hearing, which the mother concedes was not required (see Matter of Isaiah J. [Janice J.], 82 AD3d 651, 652 [2011]). There was no evidence that posttermination visitation, if permitted, would be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Corinthian Marie S., 297 AD2d 382 [2002]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 527, 933 N.Y.2d 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shae-tylasia-im-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack