In re Trisha K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Trisha K.

9 A.D.3d 900, 779 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9561

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 9, 2004·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered July 24, 2003. The order terminated the parental rights of respondent with respect to his two oldest children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking [901] to terminate the parental rights of respondent with respect to his two oldest children on the ground of permanent neglect. Respondent admitted the allegations of permanent neglect and, after a dispositional hearing, Family Court granted the petition. Contrary to respondent’s contention, a suspended judgment, i.e., “a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child (Family Ct Act § 633),” was not appropriate in this case (Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]). The record establishes that respondent is unable to care for his children, who have special needs, and has engaged in acts of domestic violence. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered July 24, 2003. The order terminated the parental rights of respondent with respect to his two oldest children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking [901] to terminate the parental rights of respondent with respect to his two oldest children on the ground of permanent neglect. Respondent admitted the allegations of permanent neglect and, after a dispositional hearing, Family Court granted the petition. Contrary to respondent’s contention, a suspended judgment, i.e., “a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child (Family Ct Act § 633),” was not appropriate in this case (Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]). The record establishes that respondent is unable to care for his children, who have special needs, and has engaged in acts of domestic violence. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

In re Trisha K., 9 A.D.3d 900, 779 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

9 A.D.3d 900 (In re Trisha K.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related