You are here: / / Facts Did Not Support Family Court’s Dismissal of a Petition to Terminate...
,

Facts Did Not Support Family Court’s Dismissal of a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights of Both Parents—Permanent Neglect Finding Was Warranted by the Facts

The First Department reversed Family Court, based on the appellate division’s own findings of fact, and found that neither parent had made realistic plans for the child’s future, constituting clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect:

There is no dispute that the agency has met the threshold requirement in a permanent neglect proceeding of showing it discharged its statutory obligation to exert diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationships (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]…). However, contrary to the findings by Family Court, there is clear and convincing evidence, the standard of proof required …, that despite the agency’s diligence, neither parent has, “for a period of either at least one year or fifteen out of the most recent twenty-two months following the date [the] child came into the care of an authorized agency,” shown sufficient planning for the child’s future, as described in the Social Services Law, to warrant continuing parental rights (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]…).

Planning for the future of the child under the Social Services Law requires that the parent take “necessary [steps] to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child within a period of time which is reasonable”; at the very least, the parent must take steps to “correct the conditions” that resulted in the initial removal of the child from the home … . Matter of Selvin Adoph F v Thelma Lynn F, 2014 NY Slip Op 03432, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

You might also like
Where the Parties’ Intent Can Be Determined from the Four Corners of the Contract, the Interpretation of the Contract is a Purely Legal Question Which Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal and Which Can Be Finally Determined by the Appellate Court (No Need for a Trial)
ARBITRABLE CLAIMS WHICH ARE INEXTRICABLY TIED TO CLAIMS ALREADY IN COURT SHOULD BE LITIGATED IN COURT.
ALTHOUGH THE FREE-STANDING BRACE FRAME WAS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME IT FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure

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

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudication Appropriate to Ensure Residential Supervi... Family Court Should Not Have Denied Father’s Request for Son’s Mental...