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: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES on Behalf of NICHOLAS DOUGLAS B. (Anonymous) a/k/a Nicholas B. (Anonymous). Melissa B. (Anonymous), Appellant-Respondent; Bruce R. Bekritsky, Nonparty Respondent-Appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, (1) the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a combined fact-finding and dispositional order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Medowar, J.), entered April 4, 1997, made after a hearing, as found that she had permanently neglected the child, terminated her parental rights, and committed the child to the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services, and (2) the Law Guardian cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as permitted the mother to make a future application for visitation.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports the finding of permanent neglect. The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent attempts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, and that, despite its encouragement, the mother failed to maintain continuous contact with her son on a regular basis and failed to plan for his future (see, Social Services Law § 384-b; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824).
In addition, the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing demonstrated that the child's best interests would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing him for adoption (see, Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139). The court-appointed psychiatrist testified that the mother was not capable of safely parenting the subject child, especially in light of the child's disabilities and special needs, because of her chronic mental illness.
We have reviewed the cross-appellant's contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Linda P. v. Thomas P., 240 A.D.2d 583, 659 N.Y.S.2d 55; Matter of Jesse F., 193 A.D.2d 839, 597 N.Y.S.2d 511; Matter of James P.W. v. Eileen M. W., 136 A.D.2d 549, 523 N.Y.S.2d 169).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 19, 1998
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)