In re Angeles

Decision Date27 November 2013
PartiesIn the Matter of CARTER A., Alleged to be an Abandoned Child. Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jason A., Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

111 A.D.3d 1181
977 N.Y.S.2d 415
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07891

In the Matter of CARTER A., Alleged to be an Abandoned Child.
Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent;
Jason A., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Nov. 27, 2013.



Bruce Evans Knoll, Albany, for appellant.

Ingrid Olsen–Tjensvold, Cortland County Department of Social Services, Cortland, for respondent.


Donna C. Chin, Ithaca, attorney for the child.

Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

GARRY, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), entered October 12, 2012, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate Carter A. to be an abandoned child, and terminated respondent's parental rights.

Respondent is the father of a child (born in 2011). In October 2011, the child was removed from the custody of respondent and the child's mother, and neglect proceedings were filed against both parents. The child lived with relatives until January 2012, when he was placed in petitioner's custody, and he has since resided in foster care. In April 2012, upon respondent's default, Family Court issued an order finding that he had neglected the child. In June 2012, petitioner commenced this abandonment proceeding against him. Following a dispositional hearing in the neglect proceeding, Family Court directed that the child remain in petitioner's custody and ordered petitioner to provide respondent—who had been incarcerated in

[977 N.Y.S.2d 416]

May 2012—with supervised visitation upon his written request. In September 2012, Family Court conducted a combined fact-finding and dispositional hearing in the abandonment proceeding, determined that respondent had abandoned the child, and terminated his parental rights. Respondent appeals.

We agree with Family Court that petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that, during the six-month period immediately before the abandonment petition was filed, respondent “evince[d] an intent to forego his ... parental rights and obligations as manifested by his ... failure to visit the child and communicate with the child or [petitioner], although able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by [petitioner]” (Social Services Law § 384–b [5][a]; see Matter of Maria E. [Jermaine D.], 94 A.D.3d 1357, 1357–1358, 943 N.Y.S.2d 249 [2012] ). Respondent's ability to maintain contact with the child was presumed, even after he was incarcerated ( see Matter of Ryan Q. [Eric Q.], 90 A.D.3d 1263, 1264, 935 N.Y.S.2d 179 [2011], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 809, 944 N.Y.S.2d 480, 967 N.E.2d 705 [2012]; Matter of Jamaica M. [Hakeem N.], 90 A.D.3d 1105, 1106, 934 N.Y.S.2d 560 [2011], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 215, 963 N.E.2d 792 [2012] ). Petitioner's witnesses testified that, when the six-month period began, respondent was scheduled to visit the child once each week, but that he did so only twice in December 2011, and never thereafter. During January 2012, he failed to respond to several messages from petitioner's caseworkers about the missed visits. A caseworker visited his home and was then advised that respondent had been arrested; he did not respond to her subsequent communications. Later in January 2012,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Michael L. (In re Derick L.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 21, 2018
    ...KK.], 114 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 981 N.Y.S.2d 177 [2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 901, 2014 WL 1705650 [2014] ; Matter of Carter A. [Jason A.], 111 A.D.3d 1181, 1182–1183, 977 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 862, 983 N.Y.S.2d 493, 6 N.E.3d 612 [2014] ). A casework testified that respondent......
  • In re Colby II.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 23, 2016
  • Broome Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Rachel L. (In re Micah L.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 18, 2021
    ...a finding of abandonment (see Matter of Dustin JJ. [Clyde KK.], 114 A.D.3d at 1052, 981 N.Y.S.2d 177 ; Matter of Carter A. [Jason A.], 111 A.D.3d 1181, 1183, 977 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 862, 2014 WL 642707 [2014] ). Upon consideration of the foregoing, as well as the child'......
  • Broome Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kimberly X. (In re Dakota W.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 2020
    ...and their anger issues (see Matter of Joshua M. [Brittany N.], 167 A.D.3d at 1270, 89 N.Y.S.3d 777 ; Matter of Carter A. [Jason A.], 111 A.D.3d 1181, 1183, 977 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 862, 2014 WL 642707 [2014] ). Likewise, the requirement to pick up and sign a statement th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT