IN RE MONCRIEFF G

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 2005-11809, 2005-11811, 2005-11812.

Attorney(S)

Matthew M. Lupoli, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant. Satterlee Stephens Burke Burke, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Zoe E. Jasper of counsel), for petitioner-respondent Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.

Judges

Peter B. Skelos
Ruth C. Balkin

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

In the Matter of EVELYN MONCRIEFF G., an Infant. LUTHERAN OCIAL SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, INC., et al., Respondents; EDMUND EMERSON G., SR., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of ELSWITH PATRICIA G., an Infant. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, INC., et al., Respondents; EDMUND EMERSON G., SR., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of CLARA EMERSON G., an Infant. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, INC., et al., Respondents; EDMUND EMERSON G., SR., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.).

Ordered that the orders of fact finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court's findings as to the credibility, character, and temperament of the parent and other witnesses are to be accorded great deference ( see Matter of Celenia R.), 264 AD2d 737, 738). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports the Family Court's findings of permanent neglect. It was established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc., made diligent attempts to strengthen the parent-child relationships, and that despite its efforts, the father failed to meaningfully plan for the future of the subject children ( see Social Services Law § 384-b; Matter of Star Leslie W.), 63 NY2d 136, 140; Matter of Ashey Lorraine R.), 22 AD3d 671; Matter of Pleasant Edward G.), 306 AD2d 409).

In addition, the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing demonstrated that the subject children's best interests would be served by terminating the father's parental rights and freeing the children for adoption by their respective foster parents ( see Matter of Ashey Lorraine R., supra; Matter of Marie J.), 307 AD2d 265; Matter of Precious Sarah B.), 269 AD2d 393).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

Comments