Orange County Department of Social Services v. Lisa Sue C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orange County Department of Social Services v. Lisa Sue C.

196 A.D.2d 592, 601 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8076

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

DecidedAugust 16, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 592 (Orange County Department of Social Services v. Lisa Sue 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

Orange County Department of Social Services v. Lisa Sue C., 196 A.D.2d 592, 601 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 10, 1991, which terminated her parental rights upon finding that she had violated the terms and conditions set forth in an order dated January 22, 1991.

[593]*593Ordered that the order entered December 10, 1991, is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a hearing to determine (1) the exact nature of the "aftercare recommendations” promulgated pursuant to the order dated January 22, 1991, and (2) whether the mother complied with those "recommendations”.

In the order dated January 22, 1991, the Family Court required that the mother successfully complete an alcohol rehabilitation program and "follow through with any and all aftercare recommendations made”. The mother indisputably failed to comply with certain of the "aftercare recommendations” regarding attendance at a halfway house program, relocation to Orange County, and avoidance of emotional or physical relationships with males. As a result, the court freed the mother’s children for adoption. We reverse and remit to the Family Court for a further hearing.

Since the "aftercare recommendations” at issue were never spelled out in the order dated January 22, 1991, it was incumbent upon the petitioner at the hearing to demonstrate exactly what instructions had been communicated to the mother. This the petitioner failed to do. It is not clear, for example, whether, at the time of the hearing, the mother still had time to comply with the halfway house program recommendation by enrolling in such a program before January 22, 1992, or whether her move to Middletown in Orange County was specifically proscribed by her primary therapist. Therefore, we remit the matter to the Family Court for a further hearing as to the exact terms of the "aftercare recommendations” given to the mother and a new determination as to whether she complied with them. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered December 10, 1991, which terminated her parental rights upon finding that she had violated the terms and conditions set forth in an order dated January 22, 1991.

[593]*593Ordered that the order entered December 10, 1991, is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a hearing to determine (1) the exact nature of the "aftercare recommendations” promulgated pursuant to the order dated January 22, 1991, and (2) whether the mother complied with those "recommendations”.

In the order dated January 22, 1991, the Family Court required that the mother successfully complete an alcohol rehabilitation program and "follow through with any and all aftercare recommendations made”. The mother indisputably failed to comply with certain of the "aftercare recommendations” regarding attendance at a halfway house program, relocation to Orange County, and avoidance of emotional or physical relationships with males. As a result, the court freed the mother’s children for adoption. We reverse and remit to the Family Court for a further hearing.

Since the "aftercare recommendations” at issue were never spelled out in the order dated January 22, 1991, it was incumbent upon the petitioner at the hearing to demonstrate exactly what instructions had been communicated to the mother. This the petitioner failed to do. It is not clear, for example, whether, at the time of the hearing, the mother still had time to comply with the halfway house program recommendation by enrolling in such a program before January 22, 1992, or whether her move to Middletown in Orange County was specifically proscribed by her primary therapist. Therefore, we remit the matter to the Family Court for a further hearing as to the exact terms of the "aftercare recommendations” given to the mother and a new determination as to whether she complied with them. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 592, 601 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orange-county-department-of-social-services-v-lisa-sue-c-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack