Lutheran Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Mary H., 158 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Lutheran Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Mary H., 158 A.D.2d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Adonis H. (Enerfry H.) (nyappdiv, 2021-10-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Adonis H. (Enerfry H.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the supervisor's testimony established that she was an ACS employee and was familiar with the agency's [*2]record-keeping practices ( see Kelly v Wasserman , 5 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1959]; Matter of Brooke Louise H. , 158 AD2d 425, 426 [1st Dept 1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Adonis H. (Enerfry H.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the supervisor's testimony established that she was an ACS employee and was familiar with the agency's [*2]record-keeping practices ( see Kelly v Wasserman , 5 NY2d 425, 429-430 [1959]; Matter of Brooke Louise H. , 158 AD2d 425, 426 [1st Dept 1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jenna Nicole B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the agency arranged for regular visitation, the mother’s visitation was inconsistent, and there were periods of time during which the mother did not visit (see Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425, 425-426 [1st Dept 1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jenna Nicole B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the agency arranged for regular visitation, the mother’s visitation was inconsistent, and there were periods of time during which the mother did not visit (see Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425, 425-426 [1st Dept 1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Christopher Jamar V.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
There was clear and convincing evidence, based on testimony and properly admitted business records (see Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425, 426 [1990]), that appellant had permanently neglected the child by failing to plan for his future, despite the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Roy R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
A proper foundation for the admission of petitioner’s case record was laid by the testimony of a caseworker with personal knowledge of petitioner’s record-making practices (see Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425, 426 [1990]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Joshua T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
In a Family Court proceeding which has inexplicitly taken nine years of an innocent young child’s life to bring to this point, the finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence of infrequent visits by respondent with the child despite diligent efforts by the agency to schedule and encourage frequent visits, and of respondent’s failure to undergo a drug screen and complete a parenting skills course despite referrals by the agency (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [b]; see, Matter of Brooke Louise H., 158 AD2d 425 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Brooke Louise H., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Lutheran Community Services, Inc.
v.
Mary H.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 27, 1990.
158 A.D.2d 425
1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2105
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

Respondent contends that petitioner’s failure to make diligent efforts to unite her and her daughter precludes a finding of permanent neglect. However, the evidence demonstrated that petitioner arranged visitation and attempted to assist respondent in obtaining housing but respondent kept only 4 of[*426] 36 scheduled visits between March 1986 and August 1987 and refused assistance in obtaining housing. Failure to maintain contact with a child or infrequent or insubstantial contact constitute grounds for a finding of permanent neglect (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 143). Further, where an agency’s efforts are frustrated by ”an utterly un-co-operative or indifferent parent”, the agency has fulfilled its duty by making reasonable efforts under the circumstances (Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385). In addition, proof of diligent effort is not required where, as here, the parent failed to apprise the agency of her whereabouts for a period of more than six months (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [e]; Matter of O. Children, 128 AD2d 460, 465).

Contrary to respondent’s contention, a proper foundation was laid for admission of the agency’s case record as a business record (CPLR 4518 [a]) by the testimony of the caseworker with personal knowledge of the business practices of the agency (Sabatino v Turf House, 76 AD2d 945, 946). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.