In re the Commitment of Latasha B.

234 A.D.2d 48, 650 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12304
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 48 (In re the Commitment of Latasha B.) 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 the Commitment of Latasha B., 234 A.D.2d 48, 650 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1995, which, upon a finding of mental retardation, terminated respondent’s parental rights, committed custody and guardianship of the subject child to petitioner child-care agency, and terminated visitation between respondent and child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental retardation, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject child (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). Jessica has been in foster care with the same foster mother since she was voluntarily placed by the respondent immediately after her birth seven years ago. Petitioner’s clinical psychologist testified that respondent lacks the most basic of parental skills, is unable to maintain most skills necessary for independent living, possesses an inability to budget, does not cook or shop, and has problems with basic child care functioning and no appreciation of a child’s emotional bonding needs. There is no merit to respondent’s argument that the court improperly considered evidence of the subject child’s special needs in making its determination, the court explicitly indicating that it did not do so. In any event, such consideration is proper to a determination of a parent’s ability to provide adequate care for the child. It was also proper for the court not to conduct a dispositional hearing (Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Shamiyah P. (Anna P.)
134 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Laura F.
18 A.D.3d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Guardianship of Jose Antonio G.
248 A.D.2d 278 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 A.D.2d 48, 650 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-commitment-of-latasha-b-nyappdiv-1996.