Matter of Victoria S.N. (Porsha N.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Victoria S.N. (Porsha N.)

135 A.D.3d 765, 24 N.Y.S.3d 332

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2016

Docket2014-10023

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 765 (Matter of Victoria S.N. (Porsha N.)) 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 Victoria S.N. (Porsha N.), 135 A.D.3d 765, 24 N.Y.S.3d 332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal *766 from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), dated September 15, 2014. The order, after a hearing, found that the mother abandoned the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York and Forestdale, Inc., for the purpose of adoption.

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

This proceeding was commenced to terminate the mother’s parental rights. After a hearing, the Family Court issued an order of fact-finding and disposition finding that the mother abandoned the subject child, terminating her parental rights, and transferring custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York and Forestdale, Inc., for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother abandoned the subject child because she had no contact with the child, the petitioner agency, or the foster home where the child had been placed, during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; Matter of Keymani R.J. [Shakima J.], 95 AD3d 1213 [2012]; Matter of Amaru M. [Kizwana M.], 87 AD3d 1069 [2011]; Matter of Robert A.G., 62 AD3d 701 [2009]; Matter of Dallas Keith M., 55 AD3d 612 [2008]; Matter of Jamar Terry N., 46 AD3d 563 [2007]). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights (see Matter of Jessie Skyler D. [Donna S.], 88 AD3d 703, 704 [2011]; Matter of Andrea B., 66 AD3d 770, 771 [2009]; Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Chambers, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal *766 from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), dated September 15, 2014. The order, after a hearing, found that the mother abandoned the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York and Forestdale, Inc., for the purpose of adoption.

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

This proceeding was commenced to terminate the mother’s parental rights. After a hearing, the Family Court issued an order of fact-finding and disposition finding that the mother abandoned the subject child, terminating her parental rights, and transferring custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services of the City of New York and Forestdale, Inc., for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother abandoned the subject child because she had no contact with the child, the petitioner agency, or the foster home where the child had been placed, during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; Matter of Keymani R.J. [Shakima J.], 95 AD3d 1213 [2012]; Matter of Amaru M. [Kizwana M.], 87 AD3d 1069 [2011]; Matter of Robert A.G., 62 AD3d 701 [2009]; Matter of Dallas Keith M., 55 AD3d 612 [2008]; Matter of Jamar Terry N., 46 AD3d 563 [2007]). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights (see Matter of Jessie Skyler D. [Donna S.], 88 AD3d 703, 704 [2011]; Matter of Andrea B., 66 AD3d 770, 771 [2009]; Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Chambers, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 765, 24 N.Y.S.3d 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-victoria-sn-porsha-n-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack