Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of STEPHEN S. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; Victor S., Respondent-Appellant.
Family Court properly adjudicated respondent's child Stephen to be permanently neglected and terminated respondent's parental rights with respect to him. Contrary to respondent's contention, we conclude that the court properly determined that petitioner made the requisite diligent efforts to reunite respondent with Stephen (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Kyle S., 11 A.D.3d 935, 782 N.Y.S.2d 213; see generally Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 384, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139). Petitioner established that it made arrangements for counseling for both of respondent's children with respect to the sexual abuse of Stephen by his brother; made arrangements for therapeutic visitation between respondent and Stephen; made arrangements for parenting classes for respondent; and attempted to assist respondent in making a viable plan for Stephen's return to the home. Despite respondent's attendance at visitation, parenting classes and therapy sessions, we further conclude that respondent “remained unable to address the sexual abuse that led to the removal of [Stephen] from [respondent's] home” and was unable to make a viable plan for Stephen's safety in the event that Stephen returned to respondent's home (Matter of Rebecca D., 222 A.D.2d 1092, 1092, 635 N.Y.S.2d 847). We therefore conclude that the court properly determined that respondent failed substantially and continuously to plan for Stephen's future (see Kyle S., 11 A.D.3d at 935-936, 782 N.Y.S.2d 213; Matter of Ja-Nathan F., 309 A.D.2d 1152, 764 N.Y.S.2d 894; Matter of Jessica P., 291 A.D.2d 935, 737 N.Y.S.2d 901; Rebecca D., 222 A.D.2d 1092, 635 N.Y.S.2d 847; see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142-143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent's request for a suspended judgment (see Kyle S., 11 A.D.3d at 936, 782 N.Y.S.2d 213).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 19, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)