From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re McL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 2000
270 A.D.2d 102 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 14, 2000

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.), entered on or about May 22, 1997, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights and committed the subject child to the custody and guardianship of petitioners Commissioner of Social Services and the New York Foundling Hospital for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Judith Waksberg Mark Brandys for Lauren Annette McL.

Jeremiah Quinlan for petitioners-respondents.

Arza Rayches Feldman for respondent-appellant.

Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Tom, Lerner, Rubin, JJ.


There was clear and convincing evidence to support Family Court's finding that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject child by failing to complete a drug rehabilitation program notwithstanding petitioner agency's diligent efforts to obtain respondent's compliance with and completion of such a program (see, Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]; Matter of Natajha Starr M., 204 A.D.2d 232, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 806). Although respondent participated in drug rehabilitation programs, the finding of permanent neglect against her is nonetheless warranted since respondent did not complete the programs she began (see, Matter of Vincent M., 255 A.D.2d 515; Matter of Masa Qwawi D., 245 A.D.2d 370;Matter of Stephen Anthony M., 237 A.D.2d 363, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 804). In light of respondent mother's failure over a period of some seven years to comply with the agency's requirements, Family Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment (see, Matter of Lameek L., 226 A.D.2d 464;Matter of Latesha Nicole M., 219 A.D.2d 521; Matter of Juan Andres R., 216 A.D.2d 145). Finally, under all the relevant circumstances, termination of respondent's parental rights so as to permit the adoption process to move forward was properly found by Family Court to be in the best interests of the subject child (see, Matter of Amanda R., 215 A.D.2d 220, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 705).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re McL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 14, 2000
270 A.D.2d 102 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re McL

Case Details

Full title:IN RE COMMITMENT OF THE GUARDIANSHIP, etc., LAUREN ANNETTE McL., etc., A…

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

Date published: Mar 14, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 102 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

Matter of Lauren Annette McL

Decided June 8, 2000. Appeal from the 1st Dept., 270 A.D.2d 102. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…

In re Male M.

aring, we dismiss so much of the appeal as is addressed to that determination ( see Matter of Christopher H.,…