In re Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (38 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jasmine W. (Michael J.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
A credibility assessment of a hearing court is accorded considerable deference on appeal unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Arthur G. [Tiffany M.], 112 AD3d 925 , 925-926 [2013]; Matter of Sadiq H. [Karl H.], 81 AD3d 647 [2011]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036 [2010]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Duane S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Family Court’s determination to continue the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tsulyn A. [Deborah A.], 90 AD3d 748, 749 [2011]; Matter of Nigel S., 44 AD3d 673, 673 [2007]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Duane S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Family Court’s determination to continue the permanency goal of “placement for adoption” has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tsulyn A. [Deborah A.], 90 AD3d 748, 749 [2011]; Matter of Nigel S., 44 AD3d 673, 673 [2007]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lavalle W.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
We agree with the Attorney for the Children that the court’s determination with respect to Lavar W lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Sean S. [Halvorsen], 85 AD3d 1575 [2011]; see generally Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.], 74 AD3d 1434 [2010]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jose T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
We agree with the Attorney for the Child that the court’s determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Sean S. [Halvorsen], 85 AD3d 1575 [2011]; see generally Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.], 74 AD3d 1434 [2010]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Sean S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
We agree with the Attorney for the Children that the court’s determination with respect to the two brothers lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see generally Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.], 74 AD3d 1434 [2010]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lindsey BB.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Turning to the permanency hearing order, Family Court was empowered to modify the permanency goal for the children {see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i]; [e]; Matter of Rebecca KK., 55 AD3d 984, 986 [2008]), and respondents’ wholesale failure to engage in services since the children entered foster care provided a sound and substantial basis in the record for its decision to do so here (see Matter of Patrice S., 63 AD3d 620, 621 [2009]; Matter of Rebecca KK., 55 AD3d at 986 ; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Patrice S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
The record thus supported the finding that a change of goal to adoption was in the child’s best interests at that time (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]; Matter of Amanda C., 309 AD2d 744 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Rebecca KK.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Moreover, Family Court has the authority to approve or modify the proposed permanency goal (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i]) and, given the severe abuse petition that postdated the permanency hearing report, as well as evidence that respondent refused to permit mandated home inspection or sign releases of information, and rarely complied with the requirements that she meet with caseworkers and participate in mental health counseling sessions and other mandated services, the record contains a sound and substantial basis to support the court’s modification of the permanency goal here (se…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Haylee RR. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Termination of parental rights and freeing a child for adoption may be appropriate where the parents do not develop an awareness of the child’s basic needs or the reason the child is in foster care, as long as the parents have been provided with adequate time and services to assist them in developing such an awareness (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Nigel S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a plan to change the permanency goal to adoption was in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re David Edward D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Since the Family Court had the advantage of viewing the witnesses and assessing their character and credibility, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]; Matter of John Robert P. v Vito C., 23 AD3d 659, 661 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Vivian OO.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
In short, the evidence demonstrates that respondent failed to correct the condition that led to the removal of the child (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]; Matter of Tabitha BB., 304 AD2d 875, 876 [2003]) and she does not have a plan for the child’s future that would prevent its recurrence (see Matter of Karina U., supra at 773; Matter of Keith JJ., 295 AD2d 644, 648 [2002]; Matter of Princess C., 279 AD2d 825, 828 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jennifer R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent Gordana K., , (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Steven R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent Gordana K., , (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 30, 2006.
29 A.D.3d 1003
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published

[*1004] In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief and as further limited by a decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 14, 2005, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), entered June 12, 2003, as, after a permanency hearing, changed the permanency goal to placement for adoption and directed that the petitioner would no longer be required to use reasonable efforts to reunite the family.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Suffolk County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a plan to change the permanency goal to adoption was in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Amanda C., 309 AD2d 744 [2003]; Matter of Glenn B., 303 AD2d 498 [2003]). Great deference is accorded to the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its finding will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of John Robert P. v Vito C., 23 AD3d 659 [2005]).

The Family Court found that, notwithstanding the parents’ efforts, “their incapacity as parents is not what these children need.” The court found that the mother had only recently begun to address the domestic violence issues which led to the removal of the subject children. The parents’ progress in therapy was found to be “too little and too late to continue to consider a goal of reunification.” The court found that, despite the substantial resources provided by DSS, the parents had not developed awareness and understanding of the children’s needs. For these reasons, the court changed the permanency goal to adoption and relieved DSS of its obligation to use reasonable efforts to reunite the parents with the subject children.

Considering the testimony at the permanency hearing that the parents continued to deny that there was any domestic violence in the home, contrary to the court’s finding of June 8, 2000, and thus had failed to address the problem that had led to the children’s removal, and given that the children had been in[*1005] foster care for more than three years, the court’s decision to approve a permanency goal of adoption had a sound and substantial basis in the record. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.