In re Shavonda GG.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shavonda GG.

254 A.D.2d 643, 679 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 643 (In re Shavonda GG.) 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 Shavonda GG., 254 A.D.2d 643, 679 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J. P.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.), entered April 14, 1997, which granted petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant [644]*644to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent’s children to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

When these related proceedings were previously before us, we rejected claims that the proceedings were jurisdictionally defective or that petitioner had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it fulfilled its statutory duty to make diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship or that respondent failed to plan for the future of her children (232 AD2d 780). We therefore upheld Family Court’s findings of permanent neglect but reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to Family Court solely on the basis of our finding that Family Court had erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights without first conducting a dispositional hearing (id.). Family Court has since conducted such a hearing and on the basis of the evidence presented therein made de novo determinations to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Respondent appeals and we now affirm.

The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, including evidence of respondent’s continuing failure to meaningfully deal with her alcoholism and mental illness, provide abundant support for Family Court’s conclusion that it would be in the children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights and commit their care and custody to petitioner (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148).

Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

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

Mercure, J. P.

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.), entered April 14, 1997, which granted petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant [644]*644to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent’s children to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

When these related proceedings were previously before us, we rejected claims that the proceedings were jurisdictionally defective or that petitioner had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it fulfilled its statutory duty to make diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship or that respondent failed to plan for the future of her children (232 AD2d 780). We therefore upheld Family Court’s findings of permanent neglect but reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to Family Court solely on the basis of our finding that Family Court had erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights without first conducting a dispositional hearing (id.). Family Court has since conducted such a hearing and on the basis of the evidence presented therein made de novo determinations to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Respondent appeals and we now affirm.

The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, including evidence of respondent’s continuing failure to meaningfully deal with her alcoholism and mental illness, provide abundant support for Family Court’s conclusion that it would be in the children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights and commit their care and custody to petitioner (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148).

Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 643, 679 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shavonda-gg-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack