From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Susan C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CAF 01-01807.

November 21, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Adams, J.), entered July 23, 2001, which, inter alia, terminated respondent's parental rights.

Deborah A. Hagen, Pavilion, for Respondent-Appellant.

John L. Rizzo, County Attorney, Batavia (Paula A. Campbell of Counsel), for Petitioner-Respondent.

Catherine M. Monachino, Law Guardian, Elba, for Susan C. and Courtney C.

Before: Present: Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton, and Hayes, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of disposition that, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated his parental rights with respect to his two children, transferred their guardianship and custody to petitioner, and freed them for adoption. Contrary to respondent's contention, Family Court's finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence establishing that, despite diligent efforts by petitioner to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, respondent failed substantially and continuously or repeatedly to plan for the future of the children for a period of more than one year following their placement with petitioner, although physically and financially able to do so ( see Social Services Law § 384-b[a]; Matter of Susan C., 299 A.D.2d 943, 944; Matter of Angie M.P., 291 A.D.2d 932, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 602; Matter of Kerensa D. [appeal No. 2], 278 A.D.2d 878, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 707; see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142-143). Contrary to respondent's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment ( see Matter of Jason J., 283 A.D.2d 982; Matter of Matthew H., 274 A.D.2d 975). "The court's focus at the dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child * * * [and] [t]he court's assessment that respondent was not likely to change his behavior is entitled to great deference" ( Matter of Philip D., 266 A.D.2d 909, 909; see Susan C., 299 A.D.2d at 944; Jason J., 283 A.D.2d 982).


Summaries of

Matter of Susan C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Matter of Susan C

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF SUSAN C. AND COURTNEY C. GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 346

Citing Cases

In re Meko H.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without…

Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Darlene H. (In re Beulah J.)

The father's related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly before us because it was…