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
PROOF THE ELEVATOR DOOR MALFUNCTIONED WHEN PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE ELEVATOR DID NOT SUPPORT A PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING THE VIDEO IN EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.
COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE, AS OPPOSED TO LIABLE FOR THE PARTY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Cross-Examine Cooperating Accomplice/Witness to Demonstrate Motivation and Bias
AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A THEORY ASSERTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AFTER DISCOVERY HAD ENDED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST 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

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