You are here: / / Father’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Pursuant...
,

Father’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b Which Is Relevant Solely to Destitute or Dependent Children

The Fourth Department determined father’s parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b, which was not applicable:

Social Services Law § 384-b is entitled “Guardianship and custody of destitute or dependent children; commitment by court order; modification of commitment and restoration of parental rights” (emphasis added). A destitute child is defined as a child “who is in a state of want or suffering due to lack of sufficient food, clothing, shelter, or medical or surgical care,” does not fit within the definition of an abused or neglected child and is without any parent or caretaker; “a child who is . . . absent from his or her legal residence without the consent of his or her parent, legal guardian or custodian”; “a child . . . who is without a place of shelter where supervision and care are available;” or “a person who is a former foster care youth under the age of twenty-one who was previously placed in the care and custody of [DSS] . . . and who was discharged from foster care . . . , [and] who has returned to foster care” (§ 371 [3] [a] – [d]). A dependent child is defined as “a child who is in the custody of, or wholly or partly maintained by an authorized agency or an institution, society or other organization of charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory character” (§ 371 [7]). It is indisputable that the subject child is neither a destitute nor a dependent child. Social Services Law § 384-b is thus inapplicable to the child and may not be invoked by either the mother or DSS as a means to terminate the father’s parental rights. We therefore reverse the order and grant the father’s motion to dismiss the petition. We note, however, that our determination does not leave the mother without a remedy. She may seek to dispense with the father’s consent to adoption pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a) … . Matter of Anastasia I, 2014 NY Slip Op 04657, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

You might also like
INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHERE FATHER RELINQUISHED CUSTODY BY CONSENT, HE NEED NOT MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS CUSTODY PETITION, NUMEROUS LEGAL AND FACTUAL ERRORS BY THE JUDGE REQUIRED THAT THIS MATTER BE SENT BACK FOR HEARINGS AND RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES RAISED BY THE FATHER’S PETITION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
IN A MED MAL ACTION PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT NEED NOT HAVE PRACTICED IN THE SAME SPECIALTY AS DEFENDANT DOCTOR TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED WHEN HE OPENED THE WATER RESERVOIR FOR THE ENGINE AND IT “EXPLODED,” APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE SNOW PLOW AND THE CONSEQUENT BLOCKING OF AIR FLOW TO THE ENGINE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS FORESEEABLE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE EVIDENCE OF ESCAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT YET IN CUSTODY WHEN HE DROVE AWAY AS A POLICE OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO PULL HIM FROM HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement In a Partition Action, Tenant in Common Not Liable to Other Tenants in Common...