In re Shawn C. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shawn C. A.

110 A.D.2d 697, 488 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48592

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

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 697 (In re Shawn C. A.) 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 Shawn C. A., 110 A.D.2d 697, 488 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[698]*698The petitioner agency sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship and to reunite the family and that the mother failed to plan for the future of the child (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368). The admission into evidence of the entire case file does not warrant reversal. The mother’s counsel was afforded the opportunity to examine the file prior to the trial (Matter of Leon RR., 48 NY2d 117, 123-124; Matter of Rosemary D., 78 AD2d 889). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in appointing cocounsel for the mother and granting a four-week adjournment on the mother’s request, made more than halfway through the hearing, to relieve her retained counsel (cf. People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264). Finally, on this record we conclude the dispositional orders were appropriate. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

[698]*698The petitioner agency sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship and to reunite the family and that the mother failed to plan for the future of the child (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368). The admission into evidence of the entire case file does not warrant reversal. The mother’s counsel was afforded the opportunity to examine the file prior to the trial (Matter of Leon RR., 48 NY2d 117, 123-124; Matter of Rosemary D., 78 AD2d 889). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in appointing cocounsel for the mother and granting a four-week adjournment on the mother’s request, made more than halfway through the hearing, to relieve her retained counsel (cf. People v Arroyave, 49 NY2d 264). Finally, on this record we conclude the dispositional orders were appropriate. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 697, 488 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shawn-c-a-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack