In re Kathleen K.
| Citation | 899 N.Y.S.2d 271,71 A.D.3d 1146 |
| Parties | In the Matter of KATHLEEN K. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Steven K. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Rachel K. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Steven K. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent, v. Steven K. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 3). |
| Decision Date | 30 March 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.
Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Brian B. Mulholland of counsel), for respondent.
Judd & Moss, P.C., Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Francine H. Moss of counsel), attorney for the children.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, and RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.
[899 N.Y.S.2d 272, 71 A.D.3d 1147]
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Tarantino, Jr., J.), dated January 22, 2009, which changed the permanency plan for his two daughters, Kathleen K. and Rachel K., to "placement for adoption" and extended placement of the subject children until June 1, 2009, (2) a fact-finding order of the same court dated May 7, 2009, which, after a hearing, found that he permanently neglected the subject children, and (3) an order of disposition of the same court dated June 2, 2009, which terminated his parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father made an application to proceed pro se at a fact-finding hearing regarding the termination of his parental rights. The only issue raised on the appeals from the fact-finding order and the order of disposition is whether the Family Court erred in denying that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Pestano
...478, 758 N.Y.S.2d 829). Here, the hearing court's determination that service was not properly effected is supported by the record ( id.).899 N.Y.S.2d 271 Since personal jurisdiction over the defendant was never acquired, the default judgment entered against her was a nullity, and she was no......
-
In the Matter of Kathleen K.
...Division unanimously upheld the disposition, holding that Steven K.'s applications to represent himself were not unequivocal and timely ( 71 A.D.3d 1146, 1147, 899 N.Y.S.2d 271 [2d Dept.2010] ). This Court granted leave to appeal (15 N.Y.3d 702, 905 N.Y.S.2d 804, 931 N.E.2d 1060 [2010] ), a......
- In the Matter of Kathleen K.
-
O'Shea v. Parker
...hearing on the petition ( see Matter of McNelis v. Carrington, 105 A.D.3d at 849, 963 N.Y.S.2d 298;Matter of Jean v. Washington, 71 A.D.3d at 1146, 898 N.Y.S.2d 63;cf. [983 N.Y.S.2d 904]Matter of Mohabir v. Singh, 78 A.D.3d 1056, 1057, 910 N.Y.S.2d 917;cf. also Nusbaum v. Nusbaum, 106 A.D.3......