AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

In the Matter of the Guardianship of LINDAY E. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abandoned. LEAKE WATTS CHILDREN's HOME, Respondent; WILSON P., Appellant.

On January 4, 1989, the agency petitioned for the termination of respondent's parental rights with respect to the four subject children, on the ground of permanent neglect pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (b). Respondent, who was incarcerated, was produced pursuant to court order on November 21, and December 12, 1989. On the next scheduled return date, respondent was not produced, on his counsel's representation that respondent waived his appearance. The fact-finding hearing was concluded that same day, in respondent's absence.

Respondent subsequently wrote to the court stating that his instructions to counsel had not been followed, and that he intended to waive his appearance only at settlement conferences. At oral argument on the motion, respondent made an offer of proof that if he were called to testify, he would state that he wrote a letter to the Department of Social Services within 6 months prior to the filing of the petition on January 4, 1989.

Family Court was correct in denying the motion, on the ground that respondent has not established a meritorious defense as a matter of law. "In order to vacate the default with respect to the findings of fact, appellant must demonstrate not only a reasonable excuse for the default, but also a meritorious defense (Matter of `Male' Jones, 128 A.D.2d 403)" (Matter of Antoine C., 176 A.D.2d 524). Even assuming, as Family Court did, that a reasonable excuse for the default was established, the writing of one letter was not sufficient contact to avoid granting the petition, and thus respondent did not establish a meritorious defense.

In Matter of Crawford ( 153 A.D.2d 108, 111), this court held that "it is a parent's obligation to maintain contact with the child or the agency. A single communication which merely serves to initiate contact is insufficient to meet the legal burden imposed on the parent to avoid termination of parental rights."

We discern no error in Family Court's determination that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the best interest of the children.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF LINDAY
(Nov 7, 1991)