Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Erika S. (In re Lamairik S.)

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Juliet W.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    We affirmed both orders in prior appeals (Matter of Destiny S. [Amy W.], 177 A.D.3d 1314, 1314 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 947 [2020]; Matter of Chloe W. [Amy W.], 148 A.D.3d 1672, 1673 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 912 [2017]). There is ample evidence in the record to support the court's finding that the prior determination of permanent neglect against the mother was "so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition[s] still existed" (Matter of Lamairik S. [Jonas S.], 192 A.D.3d 1483, 1484 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 905 [2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Carmela H. [Danielle F.], 164 A.D.3d 1607, 1607 [4th Dept 2018], lv dismissed in part & denied in part 32 N.Y.3d 1190 [2019]; Matter of Burke H. [Tiffany H.], 117 A.D.3d 1568, 1568 [4th Dept 2014]), "and that the mother failed to address the problems that led to the neglect finding[] with respect to [one of] her other children" (Carmela H., 164 A.D.3d at 1608 [internal quotation marks omitted]). To the extent the mother contends that the court erred in refusing to credit her testimony that the problems that led to the neglect finding "have been effectively remediated," we reject that contention. We see "no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations inasmuch as they are supported by the record" (Matter of Aaren F. [Amber S.], 181 A.D.3d 1167, 1168 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 910 [2020]).

  2. Cattaraugus Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Amy W. (In re Juliet W.)

    216 A.D.3d 1424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    We affirmed both orders in prior appeals ( Matter of Destiny S. [Amy W.] , 177 A.D.3d 1314, 1314, 110 N.Y.S.3d 375 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 947, 124 N.Y.S.3d 619, 147 N.E.3d 1156 [2020] ; Matter of Chloe W. [Amy W.] , 148 A.D.3d 1672, 1673, 49 N.Y.S.3d 595 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 912, 2017 WL 2683455 [2017] ). There is ample evidence in the record to support the court's finding that the prior determination of permanent neglect against the mother was "so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition[s] still existed" ( Matter of Lamairik S. [Jonas S.] , 192 A.D.3d 1483, 1484, 140 N.Y.S.3d 839 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 905, 2021 WL 3927268 [2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeMatter of Carmela H. [Danielle F.] , 164 A.D.3d 1607, 1607, 85 N.Y.S.3d 291 [4th Dept. 2018], lv dismissed in part & denied in part 32 N.Y.3d 1190, 95 N.Y.S.3d 143, 119 N.E.3d 783 [2019] ; Matter of Burke H. [Tiffany H.] , 117 A.D.3d 1568, 1568, 984 N.Y.S.2d 917 [4th Dept. 2014] ), "and that the mother failed to address the problems that led to the neglect finding[ ] with respect to [one of] her other children" ( Carmela H. , 164 A.D.3d at 1608, 85 N.Y.S.3d 291 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

  3. In re Milo C.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Here, petitioner established that the neglect of the subject child's two oldest siblings and subsequent guardianship order entered for those children as well as another sibling" 'was so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still existed'" (Matter of Burke H. [Tiffany H.], 117 A.D.3d 1568, 1568 [4th Dept 2014]; see Matter of Sasha M., 43 A.D.3d 1401, 1402 [4th Dept 2007]). Although the mother showed, inter alia, that she attended some parenting classes and therapy sessions, she failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the circumstances leading to the prior neglect "cannot reasonably be expected to exist currently or in the foreseeable future" (Matter of Lamairik S. [Jonas S.], 192 A.D.3d 1483, 1484 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 905 [2021]).

  4. Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Daniella C. (In re Milo C.)

    183 N.Y.S.3d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Here, petitioner established that the neglect of the subject child's two oldest siblings and subsequent guardianship order entered for those children as well as another sibling " ‘was so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still existed’ " ( Matter of Burke H. [Tiffany H.] , 117 A.D.3d 1568, 1568, 984 N.Y.S.2d 917 [4th Dept. 2014] ; seeMatter of Sasha M. , 43 A.D.3d 1401, 1402, 845 N.Y.S.2d 206 [4th Dept. 2007] ). Although the mother showed, inter alia, that she attended some parenting classes and therapy sessions, she failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the circumstances leading to the prior neglect "cannot reasonably be expected to exist currently or in the foreseeable future" ( Matter of Lamairik S. [Jonas S.] , 192 A.D.3d 1483, 1484, 140 N.Y.S.3d 839 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 905, 2021 WL 3927268 [2021] ). The mother further contends that the court erred in admitting in evidence the entire case file from the Ontario County Department of Social Services because the case file contained some hearsay.