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: KAIRI JAZLYN F., and Another. Carlos Manuel F., Jr., Respondent-Appellant, v. Catholic Guardian Society, et al., Petitioners-Respondents.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2006, which terminated respondent father's parental rights upon findings of abandonment and transferred custody and care of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The findings of abandonment are supported by clear and convincing evidence that the father failed to communicate with the children or agency during the six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition ((Social Services Law § 384-b[5][a] ); Matter of Anthony M., 195 A.D.2d 315, 600 N.Y.S.2d 37 [1993] ). The father's minimal and insubstantial contacts with the agency during this period are insufficient to defeat these findings (see Matter of Elizabeth Amanda T., 44 A.D.3d 507, 843 N.Y.S.2d 325 [2007]; Matter of Chantelle TT, 281 A.D.2d 660, 721 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2001] ). The father's testimony, which conflicted with that of the caseworker and the records of the agency, presented credibility issues for the court, whose assessment is entitled to deference (see Matter of Donelle Thomas M., 4 A.D.3d 137, 771 N.Y.S.2d 514 [2004] ).
In light of the father's insufficient contacts and his failure to plan for the children, as well as the evidence that the children have been together-and thriving-in the same stable and caring pre-adoptive home for almost their entire lives, the Family Court correctly concluded that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests. Contrary to respondent's contention, in these circumstances, a suspended judgment would not have been appropriate (see Matter of Charlene Lashay J., 280 A.D.2d 320, 720 N.Y.S.2d 469 [2001]; Matter of Shareal Stacey S., 17 A.D.3d 251, 793 N.Y.S.2d 402 [2005] ).
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: April 29, 2008
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)