You are here: / / TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY...
,

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the petitioner agency did not meet its burden of demonstrating father, who was incarcerated, had abandoned his child:

An order terminating parental rights may be entered upon the ground that a child’s parent “abandoned such child for the period of six months immediately prior to the date on which the petition is filed in the court” … . A child is “abandoned” within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b, if the “parent evinces an intent to forego his or her parental rights and obligations as manifested by his or her failure to visit the child and  communicate with the child or agency, although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency” … . Parents are presumed able to visit and communicate with their children and, although incarcerated parents may be unable to visit, they are still presumed able to communicate with their children absent proof to the contrary … .

The petitioner agency bears the burden of proving abandonment by clear and convincing evidence… . Here, petitioner’s caseworker testified that respondent—who was incarcerated—did not visit with the child or communicate with the caseworker or other agency personnel in the six months preceding the filing of the abandonment petition. However, the record is bereft of evidence establishing that respondent failed to communicate with the child, directly or through the child’s foster parent, during the relevant time period. Thus, petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent abandoned the child. Matter of Mason H. (Joseph H.), 2018 NY Slip Op 04384, CtApp 6-14-18

FAMILY LAW (PARENTAL RIGHTS, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP))/PARENTAL RIGHTS (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP))/ABANDONMENT (FAMILY LAW, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP))/TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS (ABANDONMENT, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP))

You might also like
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) MAY APPROVE MINING WHERE MINING IS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED IF THE MINING IS AN UNDISPUTED PRIOR NONCONFORMING USE (CT APP).
LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE DOES NOT VIOLATE RPAPL 1304 AND IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (CT APP) ​
ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).
THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD RESTED TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO PRESENT AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS; THE “ONE FULL OPPORTUNITY” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE “PRE-RULING” STAGE OF A SUPPRESSION HEARING (CT APP).
For Purposes of CPLR 205 (a) (Allowing the Commencement of a New Action within Six Months of the Termination of a Prior Action) a Prior Action Terminates When a Nondiscretionary Appeal Is “Exhausted,” Even If the Appeal Is Dismissed As Abandoned
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR DENYING, WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (CT APP).
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.

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

FAILURE TO RAISE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTION ARGUED ON APPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY... ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S MARKING AN ADMINISTRATION OF CHILDREN’S...