Matter of Rodney J. R. (Rodney R.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Rodney J. R. (Rodney R.)

123 A.D.3d 727, 998 N.Y.S.2d 210

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2014

Docket2013-08049

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 727 (Matter of Rodney J. R. (Rodney 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 Rodney J. R. (Rodney R.), 123 A.D.3d 727, 998 N.Y.S.2d 210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated July 12, 2013. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father severely abused the subject child, terminated the father’s parental rights, and transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject child to Martha Mejia for the purpose of adoption.

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

The Family Court properly granted the petition of the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) for a determination that the subject child is a severely abused child under Social Services Law § 384-b (8), and thereupon to terminate the father’s parental rights and free the child for adoption. ACS established the father’s severe abuse of the child by providing evidence of his conviction of murder in the second degree for killing the child’s mother and his subsequent imprisonment, and reasonable efforts to return the child to the father’s home should be excused as being detrimental to the best interests of the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [a] [in], [iv]; Penal Law § 125.25; Matter of Leonardo V., Jr. [Leonardo V.], 95 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2012]; Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2010]; Matter of Jamel B., 47 AD3d 626, 627 [2008]).

Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the father’s application for an adjournment pending the outcome of his criminal appeal (see Matter of Samida v Samida, 116 AD3d 779, 780 [2014]; Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332 [2003]). “[A]n order terminating parental rights on the ground that such parent was convicted of murdering the other parent may be affirmed notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal challenging such conviction” (Matter of *728 Daltun A.B. [Daniel B.], 103 AD3d 1181, 1181 [2013]; see Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 AD3d 1175, 1177 n 5 [2010]).

Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lillian Wan, J.), dated July 12, 2013. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the father severely abused the subject child, terminated the father’s parental rights, and transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject child to Martha Mejia for the purpose of adoption.

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

The Family Court properly granted the petition of the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) for a determination that the subject child is a severely abused child under Social Services Law § 384-b (8), and thereupon to terminate the father’s parental rights and free the child for adoption. ACS established the father’s severe abuse of the child by providing evidence of his conviction of murder in the second degree for killing the child’s mother and his subsequent imprisonment, and reasonable efforts to return the child to the father’s home should be excused as being detrimental to the best interests of the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [a] [in], [iv]; Penal Law § 125.25; Matter of Leonardo V., Jr. [Leonardo V.], 95 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2012]; Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 AD3d 1175, 1177 [2010]; Matter of Jamel B., 47 AD3d 626, 627 [2008]).

Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the father’s application for an adjournment pending the outcome of his criminal appeal (see Matter of Samida v Samida, 116 AD3d 779, 780 [2014]; Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332 [2003]). “[A]n order terminating parental rights on the ground that such parent was convicted of murdering the other parent may be affirmed notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal challenging such conviction” (Matter of *728 Daltun A.B. [Daniel B.], 103 AD3d 1181, 1181 [2013]; see Matter of Brendan N. [Arthur N.], 79 AD3d 1175, 1177 n 5 [2010]).

Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 727, 998 N.Y.S.2d 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-rodney-j-r-rodney-r-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack