Matter of Christina M.A.R. (Megan M.R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Christina M.A.R. (Megan M.R.)

2017 NY Slip Op 6946, 154 A.D.3d 690, 61 N.Y.S.3d 660

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2017

Docket2016-09827

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6946 (Matter of Christina M.A.R. (Megan M.R.)) 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

Matter of Christina M.A.R. (Megan M.R.), 2017 NY Slip Op 6946, 154 A.D.3d 690, 61 N.Y.S.3d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the mother from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), entered August 10, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the mother’s parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the subject child on the ground, inter alia, of permanent neglect. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court found that the mother permanently neglected the child, terminated the mother’s parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.

The Family Court properly determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 631). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the entry of a suspended judgment was not appropriate in light of, inter alia, her continued lack of insight into her problems, and her failure to acknowledge and address the issues preventing the return of the child to her care (see Matter of Shaquan D.M. [Shaquanna M.], 150 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2017]; Matter of Stephon B.M. [Barry J.M.], 149 AD3d 1080, 1081 [2017]; Matter of Hector V.P. [Mariana V.], 146 AD3d 889, 890 [2017]; Matter of Lasuree A.B. [Carla S.B.], 141 AD3d 578, 579 [2016]; Matter of Joshua E.R. [Yolaine R.], 123 AD3d 723, 726 [2014]; Matter of Chanel C. [Vanessa N.], 118 AD3d 826, 828-829 [2014]).

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Roman and Christopher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), entered August 10, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the mother’s parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to terminate the mother’s parental rights to the subject child on the ground, inter alia, of permanent neglect. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court found that the mother permanently neglected the child, terminated the mother’s parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.

The Family Court properly determined that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 631). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the entry of a suspended judgment was not appropriate in light of, inter alia, her continued lack of insight into her problems, and her failure to acknowledge and address the issues preventing the return of the child to her care (see Matter of Shaquan D.M. [Shaquanna M.], 150 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2017]; Matter of Stephon B.M. [Barry J.M.], 149 AD3d 1080, 1081 [2017]; Matter of Hector V.P. [Mariana V.], 146 AD3d 889, 890 [2017]; Matter of Lasuree A.B. [Carla S.B.], 141 AD3d 578, 579 [2016]; Matter of Joshua E.R. [Yolaine R.], 123 AD3d 723, 726 [2014]; Matter of Chanel C. [Vanessa N.], 118 AD3d 826, 828-829 [2014]).

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Roman and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6946, 154 A.D.3d 690, 61 N.Y.S.3d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-christina-mar-megan-mr-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack