You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL...
,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT TO HELP MOTHER MAKE THE TRIAL DISCHARGE WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the termination of mother’s parental rights. During the trial discharge of the child to mother, the petitioner made no effort to place in a school closer to mother and mother allowed the child to stay at the foster home on weeknights to attend school:

The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established that in May 2016, the mother had adequate housing for the child, that in June 2016, she had completed her service plan and was having unsupervised parental access with the child, and that in July 2016, she was having overnight and weekend parental access. In November 2016, the Family Court directed that the petitioner implement a trial discharge to the mother, and a trial discharge commenced on December 23, 2016. Although at that time the mother resided in Manhattan and the child was attending school in Brooklyn, the petitioner did not provide any assistance with regard to transferring the child to a school closer to the mother in Manhattan, did not provide any assistance with the child’s transportation to and from his school in Brooklyn, and did not provide other appropriate services to the family. The trial discharge failed in April 2017. According to the petitioner’s witness, the trial discharge failed after the petitioner became aware that the mother had not taken the child into her full-time custody. According to the mother, the child spent weeknights with the foster mother in Brooklyn, because of the long commute between the mother’s apartment in Manhattan and the child’s school in Brooklyn. After the trial discharge failed in April 2017, the mother consistently attended her scheduled supervised parental access two hours per week until the petition was filed on August 7, 2017.

Under the circumstances presented, the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, during the relevant period of time, the mother failed to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, and further, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7] …). Matter of Tai-Gi K. (Nadine B.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00586, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

You might also like
DNA EVIDENCE RECOVERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER POINTED TO THE VICTIM’S BOYFRIEND AS THE PERPETRATOR; BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS A SINGLE IDENTIFICATION WITNESS WHO WAS 88 YEARS OLD AND HAD POOR VISION, THE DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE LED TO A MORE FAVORABLE VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Brother and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Employees of the Defendants (Who Then May Be Liable Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior) or Independent Contractors
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW IN THE UNDERLYING PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS OF THAT ACTION; DEFENDANT ATTORNEY WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE INSTANT LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE JURY FOUND THE INJURY TO BE PERMANENT BUT DID NOT AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING TOO LOW, MAY HAVE BEEN AN IMPERMISSIBLE COMPROMISE VERDICT (SECOND DEPT)
THE JUDGE’S INTERFERENCE IN AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEFENSE SUMMATION AND IMPROPER EXCLUSION AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGED CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS PAID, WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED YET; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION HAS NOT YET STARTED TO RUN (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PRESENTING... USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR MOSTLY WEEKEND SHORT-RENTALS IS NOT A LEGAL...