Matter of Kharyn O. (Karen O.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Kharyn O. (Karen O.) 2011 NY Slip Op 09180 Decided on December 20, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny, Román, JJ.
6389

[*1]In re Kharyn O., A Dependent Child Under the Age of 18 Years, etc.,

and

Karen O., Respondent-Appellant, Lutheran Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola (Ralph R. Carrieri of
counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith
Waksberg and Laura Dillon of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2010, which terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child following her admission of permanent neglect, and committed the guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that it is in the child's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights and free the child for adoption (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The evidence at the dispositional hearing shows that while respondent had made progress since her release from prison in October 2008 and had been compliant with services for several months, she thereafter failed to complete a drug treatment program, failed to visit the child for two months, and was incarcerated in September 2009 for a parole violation. By contrast, the child was doing well in the home of her foster mother, who wished to adopt her. Accordingly, a suspended judgment was not warranted (see e.g. Matter of Jessica Victoria S., 47 AD3d 428 [2008]; Matter of Savannah V., 38 AD3d 354, 355 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2011 [*2]

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.