AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
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
Judges

In the Matter of GREGORY MICHAEL M. CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SOCIETY OF THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, INC., Respondent; ANN M.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of KATHLEEN ANN Y. CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SOCIETY OF THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, INC., Respondent; ANN M.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of JENNIFER ROSE Y. CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SOCIETY OF THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, INC., Respondent; ANN M.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of KEVIN CHARLES Y. CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SOCIETY OF THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, INC., Respondent; ANN M.Y., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.)

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On January 29, 1974, December 2, 1975, April 5, 1977, and September 27, 1978, respectively, the mother gave birth to Gregory Michael M., Kevin Charles Y., Kathleen Ann Y., and Jennifer Rose Y. (hereinafter the children), the subjects of these proceedings. The children were placed with the respondent Catholic Guardian Society of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Inc. (hereinafter CGS) on June 2, 1980.

We find that the petitioning agency met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that, despite its diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the future of her children.

The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the mother repeatedly refused to allow her husband, who would be living with the children in the event that they were discharged, to participate in a conference where a plan for the children's future could be formulated, and that her position constituted a major barrier to the discharge of the children. The mother canceled three appointments for a planning conference with a caseworker before appearing on the fourth scheduled date without her husband and failed to appear at a foster care review hearing despite being advised twice by a caseworker that her failure to do so would jeopardize the discharge of her children. The mother, who refused "preventative services" to provide support for the children after their discharge, also failed to adhere to a consistent visitation schedule. By failing to take advantage of the services and resources available to her and by repeatedly disregarding the advice of CGS, the mother did not meet her obligation to plan for the future of the children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [d]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368; Matter of Kathleen B., 144 A.D.2d 357). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF GREGORY MICHAEL M. CATH. GUARDIAN
(Nov 19, 1990)