Matter of Clifford W.C. (Clifford C.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Clifford W.C. (Clifford C.)

2017 NY Slip Op 431, 146 A.D.3d 640, 45 N.Y.S.3d 447

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2017

Docket2836

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 431 (Matter of Clifford W.C. (Clifford C.)) 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 Clifford W.C. (Clifford C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 431, 146 A.D.3d 640, 45 N.Y.S.3d 447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2015, insofar as it determined, after a hearing, that respondent father had abandoned the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father’s abandonment of the child was established by clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to maintain contact with the child or with petitioner agency for at least the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition, although he was able to do so and was not discouraged from doing so by the agency (Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; see Matter of Ruben J.R., 303 AD2d 238 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 507 [2003]). The father testified that he was informed by a letter in 2012, before the relevant six-month period, that the child was placed into foster care following the death of the child’s mother. The father admitted that his only effort to determine the child’s *641 whereabouts and welfare was a single letter to the agency sent at an unspecified time, requesting that his parental rights be transferred to his mother and sister, and a call by his mother to the agency. Family Court properly found that this minimal effort was insufficient to overcome the presumption of an intent to forgo parental rights (see Matter of Annette B., 4 NY3d 509, 514-515 [2005]). The father’s argument regarding the admission of the agency case notes is unpreserved and, in any event, unavailing.

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2015, insofar as it determined, after a hearing, that respondent father had abandoned the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father’s abandonment of the child was established by clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to maintain contact with the child or with petitioner agency for at least the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition, although he was able to do so and was not discouraged from doing so by the agency (Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [a]; see Matter of Ruben J.R., 303 AD2d 238 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 507 [2003]). The father testified that he was informed by a letter in 2012, before the relevant six-month period, that the child was placed into foster care following the death of the child’s mother. The father admitted that his only effort to determine the child’s *641 whereabouts and welfare was a single letter to the agency sent at an unspecified time, requesting that his parental rights be transferred to his mother and sister, and a call by his mother to the agency. Family Court properly found that this minimal effort was insufficient to overcome the presumption of an intent to forgo parental rights (see Matter of Annette B., 4 NY3d 509, 514-515 [2005]). The father’s argument regarding the admission of the agency case notes is unpreserved and, in any event, unavailing.

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 431, 146 A.D.3d 640, 45 N.Y.S.3d 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-clifford-wc-clifford-c-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack