From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1991
169 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 22, 1991

Appeal from the Family Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Social Services Law § 384-b (7) establishes two tests to determine permanent neglect. There must be clear and convincing evidence that there was either (1) a failure to substantially and continuously maintain contact with the child, or (2) a failure to plan for the future of the child (see, Matter of Amber W., 105 A.D.2d 888, 891). Here, since the petitioner does not dispute that the appellant satisfied the contact requirement of the statute, the relevant issue is whether the appellant adequately planned for the future of her child. We agree with the Family Court that she did not.

The plan formulated by the parents must remove destructive tendencies from their lives (see, Matter of Leon RR., 48 N.Y.2d 117, 125). In essence, they must "`take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home'" (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, quoting from Matter of Leon RR., supra, at 125).

Here, after the appellant was found to have sexually molested her 4 1/2 year old twins, her son Travis was removed from her home (see, Matter of T.G., 128 Misc.2d 914). The Family Court directed her to seek mental health counseling if she wanted to reunite herself with her son.

The record demonstrates that although the appellant regularly and continuously attended group therapy sessions, and actively participated in the group, due to her lack of acknowledgment of guilt, the cause of abuse was never explored and she was unable to gain any insight to her behavior. This contention was supported by several expert witnesses.

Since the appellant's failure to admit the proven sexual abuse prevented her from making any therapeutic progress, we find that she cannot make an adequate plan for Travis's future. Thus, Travis is a permanently neglected child (see, Matter of Jessica MM., 122 A.D.2d 462; see also, Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, supra). Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1991
169 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

In re Dutchess

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TRAVIS LEE G. DUTCHESS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 136

Citing Cases

In Matter of Afton C. v. James C.

Ronna L. DeLoe, Mamaroneck, Attorney for the Child Trevor C. I. The Appellate Division committed reversible…

Matter of Tammy

Since the father failed to make any therapeutic progress, we find that he cannot make an adequate plan for…