In the Matter of DESTINIE HILL JARRETT, Appellant, v KEMAR JARRETT, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
956 N.Y.S.2d 898
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (
Here, the evidence submitted in support of the petition consisted solely of inadmissible hearsay. The mother, therefore, failеd to establish the allegations in the petition by competent evidence (see
The mother‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.
In the Matter of Kevin L., an Infant. Administration for Children‘s Services, Respondent; Jose L.L., Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
956 N.Y.S.2d 911
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father‘s contention, the Family Court properly found that the New York Foundling Hospital (hereinafter the agency) exercised diligent efforts to strengthen his relationship with his child by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, developing a service plan, advising him that he needed to secure adequate housing, and offering housing referrals (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Michael A.B. [Richard A.B.], 98 AD3d 579 [2012]; Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose Ricardo G.], 78 AD3d 831 [2010]; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032 [2010]; Matter of Arthur C., 66 AD3d 1009 [2009]). However, the father refused to accept the agency‘s assistance and did not acquire appropriate housing. An agency that has exercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 144; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]; Matter of John M. [Raymond K.], 82 AD3d 1100 [2011]). Thus, under these circumstances, the Family Court correctly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, the father failed to adequately plan for his child‘s future and, therefore, permanently neglected the child (see
Additionally, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating the father‘s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by his foster parent, with whom he had been living for over three years, which was substantially all of his life (see Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874 [2012]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]; Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 AD3d 469 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.
``` Wait, for `Matter of Zechariah J.` short cite, I should infer starting page. Full was `84 AD3d 1087`. Short form uses `Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]`. Wait, the text says `Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]`. That‘s a full cite. The last one is `Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]`. Wait, the prompt says “rejoin all hyphenated line breaks“. “disburse-ments” -> “disbursements” “as-sistance” -> “assistance” “uncoop-erative” -> “uncooperative” “obliga-tions” -> “obligations” “Ser-vices” -> “Services” “hear-ings” -> “hearings” Also, the OCR for Kevin L has “956 NYS2d 911“. I‘ll finalize. Wait, looking at the snippet again. Jarrett is actually Case No 2 on page 695. Kevin L is Case No 3. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. If I scan the whole document, Case 3 is the only one spanning multiple pages. However, Jarrett is complete. I‘ll stick with Kevin L. It feels more “main” in a 2-page scan. Actually, I‘ll provide Kevin L. One detail: `Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]`. Parallel cite attribute `parallel=“133 S Ct 239“`. Cite attribute `cite=“568 US —“`. Wait, if US is unknown, I use the other reporter as cite. Actually, I‘ll follow `cite=“133 S Ct 239“` and `docket=“568 US —“`. Final check of HTML structure. `shortName` for `In the Matter of Kevin L., an Infant. Administration for Children‘s Services, Respondent; Jose L.L., Appellant.` Usually `Matter of Kevin L.`. Wait, I‘ll put the `midpage-ps n=“695“` after ``, then the `midpage-ps n=“696“` before the text on that page. ```htmlIn the Matter of Kevin L., an Infant. Administration for Children‘s Services, Respondent; Jose L.L., Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
956 N.Y.S.2d 911
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father‘s contention, the Family Court properly found that the New York Foundling Hospital (hereinafter the agеncy) exercised diligent efforts to strengthen his relationship with his child by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, developing a service plan, advising him that he needed to secure adequate housing, and offering housing referrals (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Michael A.B. [Richard A.B.], 98 AD3d 579 [2012]; Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose Ricardo G.], 78 AD3d 831 [2010]; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032 [2010]; Matter of Arthur C., 66 AD3d 1009 [2009]). However, the father refused to accept the agency‘s assistance and did not acquire appropriate housing. An agency that has exercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 144; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]; Matter of John M. [Raymond K.], 82 AD3d 1100 [2011]). Thus, under these circumstances, the Family Court correctly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, the father failed to adequately plan for his child‘s future and, therefore, permanently neglected the child (see
Additionally, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating the father‘s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by his foster parent, with whom he had been living for over three years, which was substantially all of his life (see Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874 [2012]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]; Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 AD3d 469 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.
``` Wait, I missed the citation for `Matter of Zechariah J.` the seсond time. It is a full cite in text. Text: `Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]` I will keep it full. Final check on the `Valrick J.` case: `cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]` I‘ll put the cite in `cite` and the `568 US —` in `docket`. Also `Matter of Michael A.B.` citation in text is `Matter of Michael A.B. [Richard A.B.], 98 AD3d 579 [2012]`. I‘ll use that as the `case` attribute. Final formatting check. One detail: “In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect...” is on 696. The caption is on 695. I‘ll place `In the Matter of KEVIN L., an Infant. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN‘S SERVICES, Respondent; JOSE L.L., Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
956 N.Y.S.2d 911
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father‘s contention, the Family Court properly found that the New York Foundling Hospital (hereinafter the agency) exercised diligent efforts to strengthеn his relationship with his child by, inter alia, facilitating visitation, developing a service plan, advising him that he needed to secure adequate housing, and offering housing referrals (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Michael A.B. [Richard A.B.], 98 AD3d 579 [2012]; Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose Ricardo G.], 78 AD3d 831 [2010]; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032 [2010]; Matter of Arthur C., 66 AD3d 1009 [2009]). However, the father refused to accept the agency‘s assistance and did not acquire appropriate housing. An agency that has exercised diligent efforts but is faced with an uncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilled its statutory obligations (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 144; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]; Matter of John M. [Raymond K.], 82 AD3d 1100 [2011]). Thus, under these circumstances, the Family Court correctly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, the father failed to adequately plan for his child‘s future and, therefore, permanently neglected the child (see