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: DALLAS KEITH M. (Anonymous). Dutchess County Department of Social Services, respondent; Davonn P. (Anonymous), appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated July 9, 2007, which, after a hearing, terminated his parental rights on the ground of abandonment and committed the guardianship and custody of his son to the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for the purposes of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Following a hearing, the Family Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father failed to visit or communicate with the child and failed to communicate with the Dutchess County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS) for a period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the Family Court held that the father abandoned the child and terminated his parental rights. We affirm.
The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father abandoned his child during the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; Matter of Sabina Jessica S., 32 A.D.3d 857, 858, 820 N.Y.S.2d 525; Matter of Saquan L.E., 19 A.D.3d 418, 419, 796 N.Y.S.2d 408; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [Diane A.], 203 A.D.2d 367, 610 N.Y.S.2d 553). The father did not attempt to contact or visit the child from August 2005 to January 2007 and the father's last contact with the DSS was in August 2005. Moreover, the father failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish that his failure to contact either the child or the DSS was a result of circumstances which made it impossible for him to do so (see Matter of Alexander V., 179 A.D.2d 913, 578 N.Y.S.2d 708; Matter of Catholic Child Care Soc. of Diocese of Brooklyn, 112 A.D.2d 1039, 492 N.Y.S.2d 831).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 07, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)