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: ARMONI M.K.I., etc., and Others, Dependent Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Jasmine M.W., etc., Respondent–Appellant, v. The Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Petitioner–Respondent.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about July 5, 2016, which, based on respondent mother's admission that she violated the terms of a suspended judgment, terminated her parental rights to the children, after a hearing, and committed their custody to petitioners for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing supports the Family Court's conclusion that it was in the best interests of the children to be freed for adoption (see Matter of Gianna W. [Jessica S.], 96 A.D.3d 545, 545–546, 946 N.Y.S.2d 172 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Although respondent obtained employment, she failed to maintain suitable housing, regularly attend her mental health treatment programs, visit the children consistently or complete Parenting through Change Return Home–Reunification as required by the suspended judgment, which she acknowledged (see Matter of Aliyah Careema D. [Sophia Seku D.], 88 A.D.3d 529, 529, 930 N.Y.S.2d 579 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
Under these circumstances, termination of respondent's parental rights to facilitate the children's adoption was in the children's best interests because they have been residing in the same foster home for most of their lives, and the foster mother, who has provided for their special needs, wants to adopt them. Respondent is no closer to addressing her mental health issues nor has she demonstrated that she has the ability to care for the children (see Matter of Anthony Wayne S. [Damaris S.], 110 A.D.3d 464, 464, 973 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2013] ).
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: 5969
Decided: March 13, 2018
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)