You are here: / / Separate Dispositional Hearing to Determine Best Interests of the Child...
,

Separate Dispositional Hearing to Determine Best Interests of the Child Appropriate in Mental Illness Parental-Rights Termination Proceeding

The Second Department explained when a separate dispositional hearing is appropriate in a proceeding to terminate parental rights based on mental illness:

Although, in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights based on mental illness, a separate dispositional hearing is not necessarily required in every case … the circumstances of a particular case may warrant a dispositional hearing such that a court’s determination to forgo such a hearing constitutes an improvident exercise of discretion … . Here, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing indicated that the mother consistently continued her treatment, successfully completed parenting classes, and regularly visited the subject child. Furthermore, the record indicated that the subject child, who is now 13 years old, has long opposed adoption and has expressed a desire to maintain a close relationship with her mother. Under these circumstances, the court should have granted the mother’s motion for a dispositional hearing so that the parties could introduce evidence as to which of the dispositional alternatives would be in the best interests of the child… . Matter of Christina LN, 2014 NY Slip Op 00361, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING IN BAD FAITH IN SEEKING THE TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN WITNESSES; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPOUSES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PUBLICATION IN A DEFAMATIOIN ACTION; MOTION TO SET ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COPY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE; JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Bank Properly Reversed Wire Transfer to Plaintiff’s Account After Learning Payment Was Not Authorized by the Holder of the Account from Which the Money Was Transferred—Plaintiff, Which Had Provided the Fake Buyer with Products Ostensibly Purchased with the Funds Initially Transferred to Plaintiff’s Account, Was Not Entitled to Those Funds Because the Funds Had Been Properly Returned by the Defendant Banks Pursuant to the Wire-Transfer Provisions of the UCC
Detective’s Testimony About a Non-Testifying Witness’ Description of the Perpetrator Properly Admitted to Explain Detective’s Subsequent Actions and Complete the Narrative

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

2009 Statute Setting Aside Money for Increased Judicial Compensation Did Not... Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity...