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: SHADY GANDHI SHAMESELDIN I., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Amina Mokhtar I.S., Respondent-Appellant, The Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child, 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.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support Family Court's determination that, despite petitioner agency's diligent efforts, respondent permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for his future (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 [1984] ). Although petitioner devised a plan to reunite respondent and the child and respondent was counseled, referred to a therapy program and advised of the importance of remaining in therapy, respondent did not comply with the prescribed therapeutic program and consequently failed to recognize, much less effectively address, the problems that led to the child's placement (see Matter of Amanda R., 215 A.D.2d 220, 626 N.Y.S.2d 481 [1995], lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 705, 632 N.Y.S.2d 499, 656 N.E.2d 598 [1995] ). Respondent's “inability ․ to gain insight into her behavior cannot be blamed on the agency [citation omitted], nor was the agency obligated to accommodate her lack of insight by formulating an alternative plan” (Matter of Adrian M., 270 A.D.2d 93, 94, 704 N.Y.S.2d 247 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 757, 713 N.Y.S.2d 1, 734 N.E.2d 1212 [2000] ).
The finding that it was in the child's best interests that respondent's parental rights be terminated so as to facilitate the adoptive process was supported by the necessary preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ).
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: February 02, 2006
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)