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.
PETITIONER–RESPONDENT; VALERIE E., RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DEETZA G. BENNO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATH, FOR JACOB E.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights with respect to her son who is the subject of this proceeding on the ground of permanent neglect and transferring guardianship and custody to petitioner. We conclude that Family Court properly granted petitioner's motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039–b seeking to be relieved of the requirement that it make reasonable efforts to reunite the child with the mother. Petitioner established by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of the mother with respect to the son's half sibling had been involuntarily terminated (see § 1039–b [b][6]; Matter of Sasha M., 43 AD3d 1401, 1402, lv denied 10 NY3d 702), and that the mother had repeatedly failed to cooperate with programs intended to address her alcohol, substance abuse and mental health issues. In response, the mother failed to establish that requiring petitioner to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her son “would be in the best interests of the child, not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result in the reunification of [the mother] and the child in the foreseeable future” (§ 1039–b [b]; see also Sasha M., 43 AD3d at 1402). We have reviewed the mother's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CAF 10–00915
Decided: September 30, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)