Schenectady Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Sayyid PP. (In re Syri'annah PP.)
| Decision Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 533257 |
| Citation | 212 A.D.3d 1005,181 N.Y.S.3d 753 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF SYRI'ANNAH PP. and Another, Alleged to be Abandoned Children. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Sayyid PP., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
212 A.D.3d 1005
181 N.Y.S.3d 753
In the MATTER OF SYRI'ANNAH PP. and Another, Alleged to be Abandoned Children.
Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent;
v.
Sayyid PP., Appellant.
533257
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: December 14, 2022
Decided and Entered: January 19, 2023
Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, for appellant.
Christopher H. Gardner, County Attorney, Schenectady (Michael R. Godlewski of counsel), for respondent.
Veronica Reed, Schenectady, attorney for the children.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Fisher, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Kevin A. Burke, J.), entered April 7, 2021, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate the subject children to be abandoned, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the father of two children (born in 2012 and 2016). Both children resided with the mother until February 2019, when they were temporarily removed from her custody and placed in the care and custody of petitioner. Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed petitions alleging that the children were
neglected by both parents.1 Due to the removal and the neglect petition, a visitation schedule with the children was established for respondent and subsequently handled by a coordinator for a third-party supervised visitation program. In October 2019, after the mother entered an admission to a finding that she had neglected the children, and based upon the allegations by a caseworker that respondent had missed several scheduled visitations with the children over the prior six months, petitioner withdrew the neglect petition against respondent and filed the first abandonment petition against him.
Thereafter, respondent was discharged from the supervised visitation program and no further visits with the children were scheduled. In December 2019, respondent sought to resume visitation, which was opposed by petitioner and the former attorney for the children (hereinafter
AFC). Family Court (Blanchfield, J.) issued a temporary order suspending visitation between respondent and the children, which ultimately became final after a hearing in January 2020. Although further hearings were scheduled, in March 2020 court proceedings were disrupted by the pandemic caused by the coronavirus known as COVID–19.
When proceedings resumed in July 2020, respondent filed several motions to return the children, to intervene in the neglect petition against the mother and to terminate the placement of the children. After the matter was reassigned, Family Court (Burke, J.) indicated an intention to "restart the action." On August 21, 2020, petitioner filed the second abandonment petition against respondent and sought to withdraw the first abandonment petition. After strenuous objection by respondent, Family Court granted such withdrawal but permitted respondent to incorporate, as part of his defense to the newly-filed abandonment proceeding, the relevant time period preceding the filing of the first abandonment proceeding.2 Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court adjudged the children to have been abandoned by respondent, terminated his parental rights and committed guardianship and custody to petitioner. Respondent appeals.
Termination of parental rights on the ground of abandonment is authorized by Social Services Law § 384–b (4)(b). The salutary function of this section is to prevent children from "unnecessarily protracted stays" in foster care, while "assuring that the rights of the birth parent are protected ... [and,] where positive, nurturing parent-child relationships no longer exist,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Bateman
-
Brownell v. New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People With Special Needs
...The credible proof further reflected that Brownell, Gadway, Scott and Hale made materially false statements regarding what had occurred. 212 A.D.3d 1005 Specifically, although Defayette made clear that K.A. had not attacked Casciaro before the takedown, Brownell claimed that he had in a pre......
-
In re Bradyen ZZ.
...FF.], 170 A.D.3d 1456, 1459 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Syri'annah PP. [Sayyid PP.], 212 A.D.3d 1005, 1007 [3d Dept 2023]). The evidence presented by petitioner at the fact-finding hearing consisted of the testimony of three caseworkers, th......
-
Chemung Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Robert A. (In re Bradyen ZZ.)
...1456, 1459, 96 N.Y.S.3d 757 [3d Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Syri'annah PP. [Sayyid PP.], 212 A.D.3d 1005, 1007, 181 N.Y.S.3d 753 [3d Dept. 2023] ). The evidence presented by petitioner at the fact-finding hearing consisted of the testimony of ......