Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

In re Susan C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 21, 2003

1 A.D.2d 991; 767 N.Y.S.2d 346; 1 A.D.3d 991; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12232

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Meko H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Matter of Beulah J. (Darlene H.--Johnny J.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
In re Anthony E. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Dakota S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Cody T.B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Danielle N. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Jose R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Dominique A.W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Nathaniel W. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Kyle S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Adams, J.), entered July 23, 2001, which, inter alia, terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of disposition that, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated his parental rights with respect to his two children, transferred their guardianship and custody to petitioner, and freed them for adoption. Contrary to respondent’s contention, Family Court’s finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence establishing that, despite diligent efforts by petitioner to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, respondent failed substantially and continuously or repeatedly to plan for the future of the children for a period of more than one year following their placement with petitioner, although physically and financially able to do so (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Susan C., 299 AD2d 943, 944 [2002]; Matter of Angie M.P., 291 AD2d 932 [2002], Iv denied 98 NY2d 602 [2002]; Matter of Kerensa D. [appeal No. 2], 278 AD2d 878 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 707 [2001]; see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). Contrary to respondent’s further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment (see Matter of Jason J., 283 AD2d 982 [2001]; Matter of Matthew H., *992274 AD2d 975 [2000]). “The court’s focus at the dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child . . . [and] [t]he court’s assessment that respondent was not likely to change his behavior is entitled to great deference” (Matter of Philip D., 266 AD2d 909, 909 [1999]; see Susan C., 299 AD2d at 944; Jason J., 283 AD2d 982 [2001]). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.