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: LATASHA W., etc., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Margaret W., Respondent–Appellant, Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, et al., Petitioners–Respondents,
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Rita Bolstad, J.), entered August 2, 1996, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and of the subject child to petitioner agency and to the Commissioner of Social Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record establishes that petitioner agency made reasonable efforts to fulfill its statutory duty to strengthen the parental relationship, which were thwarted by respondent mother's indifference and lack of cooperation (see, Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139; see also, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 144, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824). The evidence supports the court's finding that respondent failed or refused to cooperate with the agency's efforts to schedule planning sessions with her and attend home visits, that she was not consistent with her scheduled visitations with the child, and that she did not provide any plausible reasons why she was unable to appear on the scheduled dates. We see no reason to disturb the court's determination that respondent's testimony as to her whereabouts was incredible (see, Matter of Quartisha McF, 247 A.D.2d 220, 668 N.Y.S.2d 593). Under these circumstances, the agency's efforts to assist respondent in overcoming the problems that prevented her from being reunited with the subject child were properly found to be sufficient (Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ). There was also clear and convincing evidence that respondent mother failed “substantially and continually or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child” (id.). Family Court was not obligated to render a suspended judgment on the basis of respondent's alleged efforts at self-improvement, because there was no evidence that respondent had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the subject child, and because respondent lacked insight into her need for continued treatment as reported by her psychiatric counselors.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: January 20, 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)