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: SUKWA SINCERE G., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Shamiqua Latisha S., Respondent–Appellant, Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, et al., Petitioners–Respondents.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about May 17, 2010, which, inter alia, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). The record shows that the agency acted diligently by issuing several referrals for the mother to attend programs mandated by her service plan, and caseworkers repeatedly reminded the mother of her need to complete the programs in order to regain custody. Despite these diligent efforts, in the four years since the child's removal, the mother failed to complete her service plan in that she did not complete mental health treatment and never enrolled in a drug treatment program (see Matter of Aniya Evelyn R. [Yolanda R.], 77 A.D.3d 593, 909 N.Y.S.2d 455 [2010]; Matter of Lady Justice I., 50 A.D.3d 425, 856 N.Y.S.2d 64 [2008] ).
A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the best interests of the child were served by the termination of the mother's parental rights (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The evidence demonstrated that the child had been provided a loving and stable home environment by his paternal grandmother, who wished to adopt him. Furthermore, contrary to the mother's contention, a suspended judgment was not warranted under the circumstances (see Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 [1992] ).
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 25, 2011
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)