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: KRISTEN SIMONE V., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Danyel J., also known as Danielle J., Respondent-Appellant, Lakeside Family and Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Clarke V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2004, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate an earlier order, after a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, terminating her parental rights to the subject child and committing custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the earlier order, same court and Judge, entered on or about May 20, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper entered on respondent's default.
Respondent demonstrated neither a reasonable excuse nor a meritorious defense in support of her motion to vacate defaults at both the fact-finding and dispositional hearings (see Matter of “Male” Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403, 512 N.Y.S.2d 689 [1987] ). The agency made the case, not refuted by respondent, that termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Danielle T., 242 A.D.2d 488, 663 N.Y.S.2d 819 [1997], lv. dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 876, 677 N.Y.S.2d 782, 700 N.E.2d 321 [1998] ). In light of respondent's chronic failure to appear in court, Family Court properly went forward with the permanent neglect proceeding in her absence (see Matter of Geraldine Rose W., 196 A.D.2d 313, 316-317, 609 N.Y.S.2d 324 [1994]; see also Matter of James Carton K., 245 A.D.2d 374, 665 N.Y.S.2d 426 [1997], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 809, 670 N.Y.S.2d 403, 693 N.E.2d 750 [1998] ). On the merits, clear and convincing evidence supports the court's finding that despite the agency's diligent efforts, respondent permanently neglected her child.
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: June 01, 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)