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: J.M.W. also known as J.W., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Kassandra F.W., Respondent-Appellant, v. Good Shepherd Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (Gigi N. Parris, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2025, which, after a hearing, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated the mother's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the child's future during the statutory period (see Social Services Law § 384–b [7][a] ). The agency made diligent efforts by, among other things, scheduling visitation and therapeutic sessions with the child and encouraging the mother to attend them and engage in services (see id. § 384–b [7][f] ).
Although the mother preserved her objections to the credibility of the case planner's testimony regarding the agency's diligent efforts, the court's credibility determinations are accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 777 [1975] ). The record does not support the mother's characterization of the case planner's testimony as false and misleading. Neither the alleged discrepancies in the testimony nor the case planner's communications with the foster parent undermine the testimony with respect to her outreach efforts. The court therefore providently credited that testimony.
Although financially and physically able to visit the child consistently, the mother failed to do so, attending less than half of the scheduled visits and therapy sessions (see Matter of Angelica D. [Deborah D.], 157 AD3d 587, 588 [1st Dept 2018] ). The mother failed to testify or present any evidence, and her various explanations for missing visitation were speculative and otherwise unsupported by the evidence (see Matter of E.M. [Josephine B.], 235 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2025] ).
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: 7104
Decided: October 01, 2026
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)