From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Wendy F. v. Onondaga Co. Dept. of S.S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Amended Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In 1995 petitioner's son was placed in respondent's custody and was subsequently adjudicated a neglected child. His placement in foster care was extended periodically, and in April 1998 respondent filed a petition alleging that petitioner had permanently neglected her son. Petitioner admitted the allegations in that petition and consented to entry of an order suspending judgment for six months and requiring her to comply with eight conditions. Family Court ordered that the suspended judgment would automatically expire in six months unless petitioner filed a petition alleging that she had complied with the eight conditions. Petitioner was informed that it was her burden to prove compliance and she acknowledged that, should she fail to establish such compliance, her parental rights would be terminated.

The court properly placed the burden of proof on petitioner to prove that she had complied with the conditions in the suspended judgment ( see, Matter of Willie W., 206 A.D.2d 868, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 809). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing by a fair preponderance of the evidence that she complied with each of those conditions ( see, Matter of Gerald M., 112 A.D.2d 6). The evidence adduced at the hearing establishes that petitioner failed to make progress in the required service programs under conditions 4 and 5 and that she denied any need for parenting education. Thus, she failed to prove her compliance with conditions 4 and 5 of the suspended judgment.

We reject the contention of petitioner that the court erred in failing to address the best interests of her son. Petitioner had previously conceded that, if she did not comply with the suspended judgment, it would be in her son's best interests to terminate her parental rights. Thus, the court did not err in failing to conduct a further dispositional hearing on the best interests of the child ( see, Matter of Grace Q., 200 A.D.2d 894, 896; Matter of Patricia O., 175 A.D.2d 870, 870-871).


Summaries of

In re Wendy F. v. Onondaga Co. Dept. of S.S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re Wendy F. v. Onondaga Co. Dept. of S.S

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF WENDY F., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
708 N.Y.S.2d 793

Citing Cases

Matter of Shavira P

The court "had already considered their best interests when it suspended judgment and indicated to respondent…

Matter of Jonathan B.

te and rule provide no procedural mechanism for the disposition of a termination petition where there has…