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 the Matter of Alexander M.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


May 3, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER M.
ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; AND MICHAEL A.M., SR.,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered March 9, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10.

Matter of Alexander M. (Michael A.M.)

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

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.

Released on May 3, 2013

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

The order, among other things, terminated respondent's parental rights.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order adjudicating his son a permanently neglected child, terminating the father's parental rights, and granting guardianship and custody rights to petitioner. The father stipulated to the finding of permanent neglect but contends that a suspended judgment would have been in the child's best interests. We reject that contention. The evidence supports Family Court's determination that termination of the father's parental rights is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Moniea C., 9 AD3d 888, 888), and that the father's negligible progress in addressing his chronic substance abuse "was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child's unsettled familial status" (Matter of Maryline A., 22 AD3d 227, 228).

The challenge by petitioner to the post-termination visitation provision of the order is not properly before us in the absence of a cross appeal by petitioner (see Matter of Carl G. v Oneida County Dept. of Social Servs., 24 AD3d 1274, 1276).

Entered: May 3, 2013

Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20130503

© 1992-2013 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.