AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In re MICHAEL M., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Michael M., Sr., Respondent–Appellant, St. Dominic's Home, Petitioner–Respondent.

TOM


Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Collela of counsel), attorney for the child.
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, JJ.




Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, determined that respondent father's consent was not required for the adoption of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother and the caseworker testified that the father did not provide any financial support for the child, although he was receiving Supplemental Security Income, and that he did not contact or communicate with the child at any time ( seeDomestic Relations Law § 111[1][d]; Matter of Phajja Jada S. [Toenor Ann S.], 86 A.D.3d 438, 927 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 716, 2011 WL 5526454 [2011] ). There exists no basis to disturb the court's rejection of the father's unsubstantiated accounts of the financial support he provided to the child's caretakers ( see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337 [1975] ), and, even by the father's own account, his contact with the child over a number of years was substantially nonexistent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Michael M. v. St. Dominic's Home (In re Michael M.)
(Feb 5, 2013)