In re Stacy A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stacy A.

239 A.D.2d 871, 661 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6228

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 871 (In re Stacy 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 Stacy A., 239 A.D.2d 871, 661 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred by "failing to inquire fully” into her request for continued visitation after her parental rights were terminated on the ground of mental illness and prior to any adoption of her child. The record establishes that the court considered respondent’s request and properly concluded that it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant it. Under the circumstances, the court was not required to conduct a dispositional hearing to determine the posttermination visitation request (see, e.g., Matter of Angela OO., 204 AD2d 768, lv denied 84 NY2d 803; Matter of Elizabeth Q., 126 AD2d 905). [872]*872(Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Rosa, J.— Visitation.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred by "failing to inquire fully” into her request for continued visitation after her parental rights were terminated on the ground of mental illness and prior to any adoption of her child. The record establishes that the court considered respondent’s request and properly concluded that it would not be in the child’s best interests to grant it. Under the circumstances, the court was not required to conduct a dispositional hearing to determine the posttermination visitation request (see, e.g., Matter of Angela OO., 204 AD2d 768, lv denied 84 NY2d 803; Matter of Elizabeth Q., 126 AD2d 905). [872]*872(Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Rosa, J.— Visitation.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 871, 661 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stacy-a-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack