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 for the CUSTODY and Guardianship OF ROBERT R., A Minor Under the Age of 18 years, etc., Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, Petitioner-Respondent, Ruth Enid R., etc., Respondent–Appellant.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about May 7, 1998, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the subject child to the commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court's finding of permanent neglect against respondent, based on respondent's failure to plan for her child's future for more than one year (see, Matter of Tiwana M., 267 A.D.2d 144, 700 N.Y.S.2d 175; Matter of Emily A., 216 A.D.2d 124, 629 N.Y.S.2d 206). Despite petitioner's diligent efforts during the statutorily relevant period to encourage the parent-child relationship, respondent failed to complete a drug rehabilitation program, leaving unaddressed a principal impediment to her assumption of parental responsibilities, and failed to visit the child on a regular basis (cf., Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139). The dispositional determination that it would be in the child's best interests (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824) to terminate respondent's parental rights to facilitate the child's adoption was also warranted.
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: October 17, 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)