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: Gabriella Kamina M., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Naquwan T., Respondent–Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Petitioner–Respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, attorney for the child.
_
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Linda Tally, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2015, which, inter alia, determined that respondent father's consent to the subject child's adoption was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner agency proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father only had minimal and sporadic contact with the child and the agency, and that the father did not provide the child with any financial support (see Matter of S'Mya Jade R. [Paul Gregory R.], 135 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2016] ). The father did not contact the agency to set up visits with the child while he was incarcerated, and did not begin visiting with the child until well after the filing of the agency's petition, when the child was about two years old. The father's incarceration does not absolve him of the obligation of maintaining regular contact with the child and providing financial support for her, according to his means (see Matter of Jonathan M.H. [Reginald H.], 135 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 904 [2016] ). Furthermore, the father was not listed on the child's birth certificate or in the putative father registry, and he did not file his paternity petition until after the agency filed its petition, when the child was over a year old (see Matter of Nevaeh R. [Veronica B.-Ruben M.], 139 AD3d 602 [1st Dept 2016] ).
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
_
CLERK
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: 2715
Decided: January 10, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)