In re Fatima U.T., 112 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Fatima U.T., 112 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Michael S. v. Sultana R. (nyappdiv, 2018-07-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Michael S. v. Sultana R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Only a signatory to an acknowledgment of paternity may challenge it on the basis that it was signed "by reason of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact" (Family Court Act § 516—a[b]; Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J ., 112 AD3d 950, 952 [2d Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beth R. v. Ronald S. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Were Matthew Q.’s equitable estoppel arguments properly before us, we would find the same, as the record evidence demonstrates that Matthew Q. had not had contact with the child since she was a baby and he had been incarcerated for most of her life (see Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J., 112 AD3d 950, 953-954 [2013]; compare Matter of Dustin G. v Melissa I., 69 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beth R. v. Ronald S. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Were Matthew Q.’s equitable estoppel arguments properly before us, we would find the same, as the record evidence demonstrates that Matthew Q. had not had contact with the child since she was a baby and he had been incarcerated for most of her life (see Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J., 112 AD3d 950, 953-954 [2013]; compare Matter of Dustin G. v Melissa I., 69 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martives G. v. Isabel M. (2×)
N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
Under Family Court Act § 516-a (b) (i), “the signatory may seek to rescind the acknowledgment by filing a petition with the court to vacate the acknowledgment within the earlier of sixty days of the date of signing the acknowledgment or the date of an administrative or a judicial proceeding . . . relating to the child in which the signatory is a party.” Although Family Court Act § 516-a permits a signatory to an acknowledgment of paternity to challenge the acknowledgment in court after the expiration of the time limits set forth in Family Court Act § 516-a (b) (i), “[a] party seeking …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Andria L. M. v. Emory M. M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Accordingly, insofar as relevant here, upon determining that the respondent should not be equitably estopped from denying his paternity of the child, the Family Court should not have dismissed the mother’s petition, but should have instead *730 ordered that genetic marker testing be performed (see Matter of Rayisha S.R. v Donnie S., 123 AD3d 833 [2014]; Matter of Felix M. v Leonarda R.C., 118 AD3d 886, 887 [2014]; Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J., 112 AD3d 950, 953 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Rayisha S.R. v. Donnie S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, considering the lack of a relationship between the appellant and the subject child, there was no evidence that “the child would suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of her family image, or other harm to her physical or emotional well-being” if the DNA test were administered and it was ultimately shown that the appellant was not the biological father of the subject child (Matter of Derrick H. v Martha J., 82 AD3d 1236, 1239 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J., 112 AD3d 950 [2013]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Kaori (Omar J.--Shalette S.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, there is potential merit to Omar’s second petition (see Matter of Russo v Irwin, 49 AD3d at 1042 ; see also Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J., 112 AD3d 950, 953 [2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Fatima U.T. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent Winfred T.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 26, 2013.
112 A.D.3d 950
Published

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the father appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated September 10, 2012, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated his parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect and committed the guardianship and custody of the subject child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated September 10, 2012, which approved the permanency plan of adoption by the child’s foster parents.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition and the order approving the permanency plan are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that, despite the presentment agency’s diligent efforts, the father permanently neglected the subject child by failing to plan for her future (see Social Services Law § 384-b; Matter of Tramel T.V. [Tracina M.V.], 108 AD3d 726 [2013]; Matter of Larice N. Mc. [Maurice Mc.], 108 AD3d 675, 676 [2013]; Matter of Imani M., 61 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]). Therefore, the Family Court’s determination that the father permanently neglected the child should not be disturbed.

In light of the evidence that the child had bonded with her foster family, with whom she had lived for most of her life, and that the father failed to plan for the child’s future, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights and free the child for adoption (see Matter of Kenneth Frederick G. [Charles G.], 81 AD3d 645, 645-646 [2011]; Matter of Jeremy D.R., 40 AD3d 764, 765 [2007]). Mastro, J.E, Roman, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.