Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Tanisha Shabazz A.

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


January 12, 2012

IN RE TANISHA SHABAZZ A., ETC., A DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., AND LATISHA G., ETC., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, SCO FAMILY SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Matter of Matter of Tanisha Shabazz A. (Latisha G.)

Decided on January 12, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman, Roman, JJ.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2010, which, upon fact-findings of permanent neglect and abandonment, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and committed the child's custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence, including petitioner agency's case record and testimony, which at best shows only "[s]poradic and minimal attempts to visit and communicate with the child" during the relevant time period (Matter of Latoya P., 305 AD2d 263 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Social Services Law § 384-b[4][b], [5][a]).

Petitioner demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child was permanently neglected within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b(7)(a). Contrary to respondent's contention, petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship by, among other things, formulating a service plan, scheduling visits with the child, and referring respondent to parenting training, mental health services, family therapy and individual counseling (§ 384-b[7][f]). Despite these efforts, respondent failed to stay in contact with the agency and comply with its plan, visit the child on a regular basis, and attend any of the referred services (see Matter of Byron Christopher Malik J., 309 AD2d 669 [2003]).

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 12, 2012

CLERK

20120112

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.