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: Application of ADRIAN M., et al., Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Saint Dominic's Home, Petitioner-Respondent, Emeris L., Respondent-Appellant.
Orders of disposition (two papers), Family Court, Bronx County (Marjorie Fields, J.), entered on or about January 26, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect against respondent mother, terminated her parental rights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record supports Family Court's determination that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts, respondent permanently neglected the subject children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139). Petitioner devised a three-part plan aimed at reuniting respondent with the children; respondent was counseled, referred to a therapy program, court-ordered as a result of a prior finding of abuse, and was advised of the importance of remaining in therapy. She, however, was evasive and uncooperative, and attended irregularly. The record does not support respondent's contention that she advised her caseworker of the reasons for her irregular attendance. On the contrary, respondent insisted that she was regularly attending. Moreover, the record shows that respondent was resistant to therapy, refusing to come to terms with the reason why she was ordered to attend. Respondent's inability, since 1993, to gain insight into her behavior cannot be blamed on the agency (Matter of Chianti FF., 205 A.D.2d 849, 851, 613 N.Y.S.2d 290), nor was the agency obligated to accommodate her lack of insight by formulating an alternative plan (see, Matter of Michelle F., 222 A.D.2d 747, 749, 635 N.Y.S.2d 709).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: March 14, 2000
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)