In re the Guardianship & Custody of Baby Boy G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Guardianship & Custody of Baby Boy G.

219 A.D.2d 549, 632 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9597

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 549 (In re the Guardianship & Custody of Baby Boy G.) 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 Guardianship & Custody of Baby Boy G., 219 A.D.2d 549, 632 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered December 11, 1992, which terminated respondent’s parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, following a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The credible evidence contradicts respondent’s assertion that the agency’s efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship were only routine and perfunctory and not tailored to her situation (compare, Matter of Anita PP., 65 AD2d 18). Those efforts failed because respondent refused to cooperate with the reasonable attempts that were made to assist and accommodate her, and was indifferent to the need to plan for the future of the child (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385; see, Matter of O. Children, 128 AD2d 460, 463-464). Nor was it improper for the court to proceed with the dispositional hearing immediately following fact-finding hearing, given the long period of time the case had already been pending and respondent’s attorney’s failure to offer any reason for a further adjournment. We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered December 11, 1992, which terminated respondent’s parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, following a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The credible evidence contradicts respondent’s assertion that the agency’s efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship were only routine and perfunctory and not tailored to her situation (compare, Matter of Anita PP., 65 AD2d 18). Those efforts failed because respondent refused to cooperate with the reasonable attempts that were made to assist and accommodate her, and was indifferent to the need to plan for the future of the child (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385; see, Matter of O. Children, 128 AD2d 460, 463-464). Nor was it improper for the court to proceed with the dispositional hearing immediately following fact-finding hearing, given the long period of time the case had already been pending and respondent’s attorney’s failure to offer any reason for a further adjournment. We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 549, 632 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-guardianship-custody-of-baby-boy-g-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack