In re Tanisha Shabazz A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tanisha Shabazz A.

91 A.D.3d 482, 935 N.Y.2d 887

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 482 (In re Tanisha Shabazz 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 Tanisha Shabazz A., 91 A.D.3d 482, 935 N.Y.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence, including petitioner agency’s case record and testimony, which at best shows only “[s]poradic and minimal attempts to visit and communicate with the child” during the relevant time period (Matter of Latoya P., 305 AD2d 263, 264 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003]; see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]).

Petitioner demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, [483]*483that the child was permanently neglected within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a). Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship by, among other things, formulating a service plan, scheduling visits with the child, and referring respondent to parenting training, mental health services, family therapy and individual counseling (§ 384-b [7] [f]). Despite these efforts, respondent failed to stay in contact with the agency and comply with its plan, visit the child on a regular basis, and attend any of the referred services (see Matter of Byron Christopher Malik J., 309 AD2d 669 [2003]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

The finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence, including petitioner agency’s case record and testimony, which at best shows only “[s]poradic and minimal attempts to visit and communicate with the child” during the relevant time period (Matter of Latoya P., 305 AD2d 263, 264 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003]; see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]).

Petitioner demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, [483]*483that the child was permanently neglected within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a). Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship by, among other things, formulating a service plan, scheduling visits with the child, and referring respondent to parenting training, mental health services, family therapy and individual counseling (§ 384-b [7] [f]). Despite these efforts, respondent failed to stay in contact with the agency and comply with its plan, visit the child on a regular basis, and attend any of the referred services (see Matter of Byron Christopher Malik J., 309 AD2d 669 [2003]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 482, 935 N.Y.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tanisha-shabazz-a-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack