In re Shaunna T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shaunna T.

225 A.D.2d 1060, 639 N.Y.2d 687

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1060 (In re Shaunna T.) 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 Shaunna T., 225 A.D.2d 1060, 639 N.Y.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from orders extending placement of his children with the Jefferson County Department of Social Services (DSS) for one year, until June 21, 1995. Respondent contends that DSS failed to meet its burden of showing that he is unable to care for his children and that continued placement would be in the best interests of the children.

The orders on appeal have expired. Thus, these appeals are moot (see, Matter of Cherilyn P., 222 AD2d 1050). Were we to reach the merits of respondent’s contentions, we would affirm. Family Court made extensive findings in support of the extension of placement (see, Family Ct Act § 1055 [b] [vi]). The record supports the court’s determination that extended unsupervised contact with respondent could cause emotional harm to the children (see, Matter of Chauncey W., 185 AD2d 675). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.— Extend Placement.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from orders extending placement of his children with the Jefferson County Department of Social Services (DSS) for one year, until June 21, 1995. Respondent contends that DSS failed to meet its burden of showing that he is unable to care for his children and that continued placement would be in the best interests of the children.

The orders on appeal have expired. Thus, these appeals are moot (see, Matter of Cherilyn P., 222 AD2d 1050). Were we to reach the merits of respondent’s contentions, we would affirm. Family Court made extensive findings in support of the extension of placement (see, Family Ct Act § 1055 [b] [vi]). The record supports the court’s determination that extended unsupervised contact with respondent could cause emotional harm to the children (see, Matter of Chauncey W., 185 AD2d 675). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J.— Extend Placement.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1060, 639 N.Y.2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shaunna-t-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack