Matter of Tiffany N.L. (Marcelino L.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Tiffany N.L. (Marcelino L.)

2017 NY Slip Op 3889, 150 A.D.3d 499, 54 N.Y.S.3d 13

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

DecidedMay 16, 2017

Docket4004

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3889 (Matter of Tiffany N.L. (Marcelino L.)) 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 Tiffany N.L. (Marcelino L.), 2017 NY Slip Op 3889, 150 A.D.3d 499, 54 N.Y.S.3d 13 (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 April 6, 2016, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of New York City Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the father permanently neglected the subject child by failing to visit consistently and by failing to plan for her future, despite the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 140 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 384-386 [1984]). The record shows that although the father was made aware of the need for him to, among other things, attend and complete a drug treatment program and obtain suitable housing, he refused to avail himself of these services and comply with his service plan. The father also failed to visit consistently with the child and behaved inappropriately during visits, frightening the child (see Matter of Charles Michael J., 58 AD3d 401, 402 [1st Dept 2009]). Overnight, unsupervised visitation with the child was suspended after the child returned from such visits with injuries requiring medical treatment.

*500 The record supports the determination that the child’s best interests would be served by terminating the father’s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by her foster mother, with whom the child has lived since she was three days old, and who has met all of her special needs and wants to adopt her (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148). There was no evidence that the father had any feasible plan to care for the child (see Matter of Olushola W.A., 41 AD3d 179, 180 [1st Dept 2007]).

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

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman 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 April 6, 2016, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of New York City Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the father permanently neglected the subject child by failing to visit consistently and by failing to plan for her future, despite the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 140 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 384-386 [1984]). The record shows that although the father was made aware of the need for him to, among other things, attend and complete a drug treatment program and obtain suitable housing, he refused to avail himself of these services and comply with his service plan. The father also failed to visit consistently with the child and behaved inappropriately during visits, frightening the child (see Matter of Charles Michael J., 58 AD3d 401, 402 [1st Dept 2009]). Overnight, unsupervised visitation with the child was suspended after the child returned from such visits with injuries requiring medical treatment.

*500 The record supports the determination that the child’s best interests would be served by terminating the father’s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by her foster mother, with whom the child has lived since she was three days old, and who has met all of her special needs and wants to adopt her (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148). There was no evidence that the father had any feasible plan to care for the child (see Matter of Olushola W.A., 41 AD3d 179, 180 [1st Dept 2007]).

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3889, 150 A.D.3d 499, 54 N.Y.S.3d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tiffany-nl-marcelino-l-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack