You are here: / / Suspended Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Termination-of-Parental-Rights...

Suspended Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Termination-of-Parental-Rights Proceeding

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, determined Family Court should not have granted a suspended judgment in a proceeding for the termination of parental rights:

After a dispositional hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights, a court may dismiss the petition, terminate parental rights and commit guardianship to the agency, or suspend judgment for a period of up to one year (see Family Ct Act §§ 631, 633[b]). “A dispositional order suspending judgment is a dispositional alternative, upon a finding of permanent neglect, that affords a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child'” … . Although this disposition provides a parent with a “second chance,” it is appropriate only where it is also in the best interests of the children … . A suspended judgment is not appropriate where a parent has failed to gain insight into the problems which led to the children’s removal in the first instance … . Moreover, to warrant a suspended judgment, “a parent must demonstrate that progress has been made to overcome the specific problems that led to the removal of the children. Mere attempts are not sufficient” … . Matter of Chanel C, 2014 NY Slip Op 04226, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

You might also like
THE CLASS—LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY POWER OUTAGES CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY—SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER TESTING WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE ONE OF TWO RELATED FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS SUBJECT TO A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO DISMISS AS TIME-BARRED, IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TIME-BARRED ACTION WITH THE TIMELY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.
PHYSICIAN’S DUTY EXTENDS ONLY TO THE TASK ASSIGNED, HERE THE INTERPRETATION OF MRI FILM.

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

Priority in Custody Disputes Given to Party Initially Awarded Custody Mother’s Request to Relocate Properly Granted