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: JOHN G., JR., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., John G., Respondent-Appellant, St. Dominic's Home, Petitioner-Respondent, Commissioner of the Administration of Children's Services, Respondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about April 30, 2008, which terminated respondent father's parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the subject child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, and bringing up for review the order after dispositional hearing, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 31, 2006, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to reunite the child with his father (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][f]; see Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44 A.D.3d 367, 843 N.Y.S.2d 50 [2007] ), respondent failed to meet his concomitant duty to plan for his son's future by refusing, even years after the event, to acknowledge his failure to protect the child from the effects of his mother's alcoholism that led to the need for foster care. Instead, respondent repeatedly described the removal as a “kidnapping” by the agency.
Permanent neglect may be found “where a parent fails to acknowledge the problem that led to ․ foster care placement in the first place” (Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 A.D.3d 285, 839 N.Y.S.2d 43 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 812, 846 N.Y.S.2d 602, 877 N.E.2d 652 [2007] ). Respondent's substantial compliance with plan components including drug-testing requirements does not avail him, inasmuch as a finding of permanent neglect may be found even where the parent has fully complied with the agency's plan (Matter of Violeta P., 45 A.D.3d 352, 845 N.Y.S.2d 278 [2007] ).
The termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests (Matter of Olushola W.A., 41 A.D.3d 179, 838 N.Y.S.2d 54 [2007] ). In light of the child's lengthy placement in foster care, substantial questions raised regarding respondent's capacity, and his treating psychologist's testimony of the child's need for stability, the Family Court correctly declined to order a suspended judgment (see Matter of Maryline A., 22 A.D.3d 227, 802 N.Y.S.2d 29 [2005] ).
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: February 04, 2010
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)