Hall, In re
| Decision Date | 05 June 1959 |
| Citation | 188 N.Y.S.2d 303,18 Misc.2d 1046 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jeanette HALL*, also known as Jeanette Winter*, the parent of children under sixteen years of age alleged to be neglected. |
| Court | New York Domestic Relations Court |
Lawrence Sheinberg, Brooklyn, for respondent.
The Probation Officer has made a request and recommendation that the child Barry Winter* be committed to an agency for placement in a home for adoption on the ground that the moral and temporal interests of such child require that the Respondent be permanently deprived of the custody of such child and that such adoption would be in the best interests of such child.
The mother came in before me on Octobor 27th, 1958, and I have conducted hearings thereon to the present date. The Respondent-mother is represented by counsel who has participated in such hearings and has had reasonable opportunity to examine the witnesses and parties as well as the case history and psychiatric reports of all parties concerned. He has examined and cross-examined the witnesses and has been given the opportunity to produce all evidence which he or his co-counsel deemed material and pertinent to the issues.
On all of the proof adduced before me I find by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence the following:
The Respondent, Jeanette Hall*, also known as Jeanette Winter*, is the mother of Leslie Karen, born on January 8th, 1945, at the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, Brooklyn, New York. Its father's identity was given as Shay Rubin*, later changed by the mother as Shae Winter*. His whereabouts are unknown although the mother states he was last known to live in the State of New Jersey.
The child Carolyn was born to the Respondent on October 20th, 1946, at the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, Brooklyn, New York. The father was a Navy officer whose name is unknown except by the first name of 'Dick' or 'Robert', and his whereabouts are unknown.
The child Barry was born at the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, Brooklyn, New York on October 23rd, 1953. Its father's name given at that time was Joseph Moore* and changed at the hearing of October 27th, 1958 to Albert Scotto* a friend of Joseph Moore*, of Washington, D. C. His whereabouts are unknown.
The petition charging the Respondent-mother with the neglect of these children was verified on August 3rd, 1954, and a finding that these children were neglected children was duly ordered and adjudged by Mr. Justice Jacob Panken on August 3rd, 1954.
None of these children has ever lived with the mother, but each was placed immediately after his or her birth at the Infants Home of Brooklyn, and the Infants Home at Far Rockaway, Queens, New York.
None of the fathers of these children nor the Respondent has ever contributed to their support.
The Respondent gave birth to another child--Nerissa Jessica on October 4th, 1957. Its father is one Bob or Robert Hamilton* of Missouri (true name given held confidential). He is now supporting the Respondent and the child by direct payment of $300 a month. This child lives with the mother and is not included in this proceeding.
All of these children were born out of wedlock. The Respondent has refused to establish a home for these children in spite of the requests, direction and planning of the probation staff for the children. She has refused to keep appointments and resisted foster home planning. She has consistently failed and refused to comply with rules of visitation, conduct and behavior. On some occasions she has requested the return of the children to her home, but has vacillated repeatedly by countering these requests by refusing to plan and prepare for their return. She has been most uncooperative with the agencies in their planning for the readjustment of her home. She has been examined psychiatrically and has refused and resisted psychotherapy in order to enable her to adjust to the needs of the children. Although quite cooperative and pleasing in some interviews and in her promises at times, this has been immediately followed by refusals and resistance immediately thereafter. Her contacts with the children have been so upsetting to their lives that such visits had to be curtailed and eventually suspended. This conduct and behavior was the basis of the original finding of neglect on August 3rd, 1954, and has continued to the present date. It is the conclusion of the Court that the conduct, demeanor, resistance and ineffectiveness is virtual and complete abandonment of these children. The children in turn have been so emotionally traumatized that Leslie Karen now fourteen years of age and Carolyn now twelve years of age refuse to see or talk to their mother. All of this is due to her conduct, demeanor and neglect.
The question before the Court is whether the child Barry should be permitted to continue in the path of his sisters Leslie Karen and Carolyn, or whether he is to be given the opportunity of a normal family life with good, decent, loving parents. Does the right of parenthood transcend beyond the right of Barry to lead a normal life or is Barry to be made the pawn of her whims and wiles and his life to be twisted and turned to suit the mother's indolence, proscrastination and failure.
Is it not the duty of the Court to protect this child and if possible, to provide and...
To continue reading
Request your trial