Matter of Zayvion Jamel Lewis S. (Jason Frederick H.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Zayvion Jamel Lewis S. (Jason Frederick H.)

122 A.D.3d 546, 997 N.Y.S.2d 66

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 2014·No. 13611·Published

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle E Roberts, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2012, which, inter alia, determined that respondent father abandoned the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence, including respondent’s own testimony, established that he abandoned his child (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]). The fact that respondent was incarcerated during the relevant time period did not excuse him from his parental obligations (see Matter of Alicia M., 22 AD3d 384 [1st Dept 2005]). Fetitioner agency was not required to prove that it exercised diligent efforts to reunite the family or assist respondent in establishing contact (see Matter of Asia Sabrina N. [Olu N.], 117 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2014]), nor was there any evidence indicating that the agency discouraged respondent from having contact (see Matter of Bibianamiet L.-M. *547 [Miledy L.N.], 71 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Dennisha Shavon C., 295 AD2d 123 [1st Dept 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle E Roberts, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2012, which, inter alia, determined that respondent father abandoned the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence, including respondent’s own testimony, established that he abandoned his child (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]). The fact that respondent was incarcerated during the relevant time period did not excuse him from his parental obligations (see Matter of Alicia M., 22 AD3d 384 [1st Dept 2005]). Fetitioner agency was not required to prove that it exercised diligent efforts to reunite the family or assist respondent in establishing contact (see Matter of Asia Sabrina N. [Olu N.], 117 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2014]), nor was there any evidence indicating that the agency discouraged respondent from having contact (see Matter of Bibianamiet L.-M. *547 [Miledy L.N.], 71 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Dennisha Shavon C., 295 AD2d 123 [1st Dept 2002]).

Concur — Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Matter of Zayvion Jamel Lewis S. (Jason Frederick H.), 122 A.D.3d 546, 997 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

122 A.D.3d 546 (Matter of Zayvion Jamel Lewis S. (Jason Frederick H.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related