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: ASHLEY LISA D., and Another, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Pradeline B., Respondent-Appellant, Episcopal Social Services, et al., Petitioners-Respondents.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered February 8, 2005, which terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioners for the purpose of adoption, upon a fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record amply demonstrates that petitioner agency satisfied its statutory obligation to exert diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. By making appropriate referrals and counseling respondent to comply with programs she was already involved in at the time the children were placed with the agency, and scheduling and facilitating regular visitation, the agency expended the requisite diligent efforts to reunite the family (see Matter of Galeann F., 11 A.D.3d 255, 784 N.Y.S.2d 482 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 703, 790 N.Y.S.2d 650, 824 N.E.2d 51 [2005] ). Respondent's lack of success in fulfilling the requirements for the return of her children was not the result of the agency's failure to exert diligent efforts, but rather of the mother's failure to cooperate and avail herself of the multitude of programs and services offered to her. Respondent's claim that she has special needs the agency should have addressed in a different manner was not developed at the fact-finding hearing, and consequently, there was no proof at that hearing that the agency knew of and failed to address that situation. In fact, the agency caseworker testified that respondent manifested no signs of such difficulties.
The Family Court properly excluded from evidence the VIPS (Very Intensive Preventive Services program) closing summary and a psychological evaluation by an unnamed preparer, as these documents do not fall under the business record exception to the hearsay rule (see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v. Becher, 25 A.D.3d 796, 797, 809 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2006] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them without merit.
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: December 18, 2007
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)