In re Corinthian Marie S. Dutchess County Department of Social Services
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Mary M.O. v. Doe (Suffolk Family Court 2006)
- In re Christopher T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Andrea C.B.B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Andrea C.B.B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Shae Tylasia I.M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Imani W. (New York Family Court 2009)
- Matter of Alexis Angelica D. (Kings Family Court 2007)
- In re Kenneth D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- In re Kahlil S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Livingston County Department of Social Services ex. rel. Jamie T. v. Tracy T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re Jessi W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Matter of Jovan J. (Lisa J.) (Monroe Family Court 2005)
- In re Jeremiah BB. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re Jessica Marie Q. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re April S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This Court has recognized that continued relations between a child and a natural parent may be in the child’s best interests even after adoption. Particularly, this Court stated in Matter of McDevitt (176 App Div 418, 423), that the “Supreme Court has ample power at law and in equity to promote the welfare of the child, notwithstanding a legal adoption * * * and the power to permit and to regulate visitation on the part of the mother is, of course, included.” Although the petitioner objected to the mother having visitation rights after termination of her parental rights, both the Law Guardian and the prospective adoptive parents consented to such visitation. In light of the totality of the circumstances herein, including the best interests of the children, the Family Court properly directed visitation with the children after the mother’s parental rights were terminated due to her mental retardation (see Matter of Angela Marie N., 223 AD2d 423; Matter of Elizabeth Q., 126 AD2d 905; Matter of Dana Marie E., 128 Misc 2d 1018).
The petitioner’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.