april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3393 In re Lady Justice I., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Edna I., Respondent-Appellant, Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families, Petitioner-Respondent. _________________________ John J. Marafino, Mount Vernon, for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Linda M. Diaz of counsel), Law Guardian. ____________________ Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2007, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and committed her custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). The record shows that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, by providing referrals to the mother for psychiatric counseling and parenting skills 8
classes, and scheduling visits with the child (see Matter of Lenny R., 22 AD3d 240 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Despite these diligent efforts, the mother, who was diagnosed as schizophrenic and bipolar, and was repeatedly incarcerated, was inconsistent in her compliance with medical treatment, and failed to complete the parenting skills program during the statutorily relevant time period (see Matter of Jacqueline A., 277 AD2d 86 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 708 [2001]). A lack of cooperation by the mother, rather than a lack of diligence by the agency, supports the court’s findings (see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]). The evidence at the dispositional hearing was preponderant that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating the mother’s parental rights so as to facilitate the child’s adoption by her foster mother with whom she has lived almost all of her young life and who has tended to her special needs (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL 15, 2008 _______________________ CLERK 9
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 21 and 22: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 23 and 24: stipulated to the grounds, and the
Page 29 and 30: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33 and 34: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 35 and 36: ecords of drug transactions and def
Page 37 and 38: argument that this testimony invade
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41 and 42: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 43 and 44: opposed the motion, and pending the
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60:
summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62:
aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64:
specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66:
Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70:
interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80:
in the first degree. After being de
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86:
panelist understood that he needed
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?