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: JASMINE PAULINE M., a Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Encarnacion N.S., Respondent-Appellant, Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2008, which terminated respondent mother's parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence, including expert testimony from the psychologist who examined respondent and reviewed all her available medical records, supported the determination that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children (Social Services Law § 384-b[4][c] ) by reason of mental illness (id., subparagraph [6][a] ) or mental retardation (subparagraph [6][b] ). The evidence showed that even though respondent's adaptive skills had improved, they were not enough to ensure the safety of her child while in her care (Matter of Leomia Louise C., 41 A.D.3d 249, 836 N.Y.S.2d 874 [2007] ).
Termination of respondent's parental rights was proper inasmuch as adoption represents the child's only prospect of a permanent, stable and nurturing familial disposition (Matter of Nadaniel Jackie P., 35 A.D.3d 305, 827 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2006] ). The court was not required to issue an order directing post-termination visitation between respondent and her child (Matter of April S., 307 A.D.2d 204, 762 N.Y.S.2d 380 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 504, 775 N.Y.S.2d 781, 807 N.E.2d 894 [2003] ).
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: May 12, 2009
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)