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.
IN RE: PHILLIP DeJOHNE E., and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Amarley E., Respondent-Appellant, Little Flower Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about January 4, 1999, terminating respondent's parental rights to the subject children and transferring their guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that, notwithstanding some contact that took place between respondent and her children after her incarceration, she failed to offer a viable resource, and otherwise failed to plan for the children's future despite the agency's diligent efforts to assist her in that regard (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142-143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824; Matter of Taqueena Louise C., 222 A.D.2d 283, 635 N.Y.S.2d 210, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 812, 644 N.Y.S.2d 145, 666 N.E.2d 1059). The finding that it is in the children's best interests to be adopted by their foster parent is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including respondent's life sentence, the absence of an alternative resource and a foster home in which the children have been living and thriving, since respondent's incarceration in the case of the older child, and since her birth in prison in the case of the younger.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 18, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)