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: N.S., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., M. H., Respondent–Appellant, v. New Alternatives for Children, Inc., Petitioner–Respondent.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about September 11, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, terminated the mother's parental rights, and bringing up for review a fact-finding order, same court (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about April 1, 2016, which found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the child's return (Social Services Law § 384–B[7][a]). The mother's service plan called for a mental health evaluation, attendance at the child's medical appointments and dyadic therapy, regular visits with the child, and consistent contact with the agency, and the agency made repeated attempts to engage the mother in her service plan (see Matter of Maria G.T. [Maria T.], 213 A.D.3d 556, 557, 182 N.Y.S.3d 629 [1st Dept. 2023]).
Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future by failing to submit to mental health evaluations or participate in dyadic therapy, repeatedly refusing to allow the agency to make home visits or to inform the agency whether she was planning for the child's return jointly with the father. She also failed to inform the agency of any services in which she engaged, failed to attend more than half of the child's medical appointments and objected to the tests and procedures recommended by her treating physicians (see Matter of Amanda M.T. [Charles Franklin T.], 189 A.D.3d 470, 471, 135 N.Y.S.3d 111 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 907, 2021 WL 1134461 [2021]). Moreover, she missed visits with the child during a three-month period because she abruptly left for Texas, during which time she never inquired about the child's welfare (see Matter of Zariah M.E. [Alexys T.], 171 A.D.3d 607, 608, 96 N.Y.S.3d 855 [1st Dept. 2019]).
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.
Docket No: 2459
Decided: June 11, 2024
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)