Alleged to Be an Abandoned Child. Comm'r of the Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Ee (In re FF)
| Citation | 198 A.D.3d 1134,156 N.Y.S.3d 477 |
| Decision Date | 21 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 531439 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF KHAVONYE FF., Alleged to be an Abandoned Child. Commissioner of the Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Latasha EE., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
198 A.D.3d 1134
156 N.Y.S.3d 477
In the MATTER OF KHAVONYE FF., Alleged to be an Abandoned Child.
Commissioner of the Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent;
v.
Latasha EE., Appellant.
(And Another Related Proceeding.)
531439
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: September 15, 2021
Decided and Entered: October 21, 2021
Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, for appellant.
Christopher H. Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Sarah Petraccione of counsel), for respondent.
Veronica Reed, Schenectady, attorney for the child.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Egan Jr., J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Blanchfield, J.), entered February 21, 2020, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate
the subject child to be abandoned, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the mother of a child (born in 2011) who has been in petitioner's care and custody since December 2017 when she was removed from respondent's care due to allegations of alcohol abuse and homelessness.1 In August 2019, petitioner commenced this proceeding to terminate respondent's parental rights on the ground of abandonment. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court determined that respondent had abandoned the child and terminated her parental rights.2 Respondent appeals, and we reverse.3
"A finding of abandonment is warranted when it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to visit or communicate with the child or the petitioning agency during the six-month period immediately prior to the filing of the abandonment petition, although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by petitioner" ( Matter of Joseph D. [Joseph PP.], 193 A.D.3d 1290, 1291, 147 N.Y.S.3d 231 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Social Services Law § 384–b [5][a] ; Matter of Mason H. [Joseph H.], 31 N.Y.3d 1109, 1110, 80 N.Y.S.3d 211, 105 N.E.3d 350 [2018] ). It is presumed that a parent has the ability to visit and/or communicate with his or her child and, therefore, "[o]nce the petitioning agency establishes that the parent failed to maintain contact with his or her child, the burden shifts to
the parent to prove an inability to maintain contact or that he or she was prevented or discouraged from doing so by the petitioning agency" ( Matter of Micah L. [Rachel L.], 192 A.D.3d 1344, 1344, 143 N.Y.S.3d 747 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Social Services Law § 384–b [5][a] ; Matter of Joshua M. [Brittany N.] , 167 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 89 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2018] ).
The only evidence introduced by petitioner at the fact-finding hearing was the testimony of petitioner's caseworker. The caseworker, who was assigned to respondent's case in October 2018, testified that respondent was granted supervised visitation with the child every other week, to be supervised by Northeast Parent & Child Society, which required respondent to confirm her attendance with Northeast staff on the day of each scheduled visitation. The caseworker testified that, in the six-month period preceding the filing of the subject abandonment petition – which ran from February 27, 2019 to August 27, 2019 – respondent only exercised her supervised visitation on three occasions, once in March 2019, once in April 2019 and once in May 2019.4 According to the caseworker,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Headwell v. Headwell
...the wife's application to preclude the report and potential testimony as untimely, further indicating that it saw no need for expert 198 A.D.3d 1134 proof on a legal issue that it was capable of understanding without assistance.4 Supreme Court, moreover, left open the possibility that it wo......
-
Schuyler Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jeanie UU. (In re David UU.)
...of Jackie B. [Dennis B.], 75 A.D.3d 692, 693, 903 N.Y.S.2d 612 [2010] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Khavonye FF. [Latasha EE.], 198 A.D.3d 1134, 1135–1136, 156 N.Y.S.3d 477 [2021] ).It is undisputed that respondent has not seen the child since a supervised visit held on July 10, 2019. ......
-
Weaver v. Weaver
...no petition or application 198 A.D.3d 1170 was made in Supreme Court or in Family Court until [the father] filed his petition in 156 N.Y.S.3d 477 Family Court on July 22, 2019, that marks the date as of which [the father] is entitled to a modification of his support obligations ... unless t......
-
Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Sayyid PP. (In re Syri'annah PP.)
...clear and convincing evidence that respondent evinced an intent to forego his parental rights (see Matter of Khavonye FF. [Latasha EE.], 198 A.D.3d 1134, 1136–1137, 156 N.Y.S.3d 477 [3d Dept. 2021] ; see also Matter of Mason H. [Joseph H.], 31 N.Y.3d 1109, 1110, 80 N.Y.S.3d 211, 105 N.E.3d ......