In re Gabrielle HH.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentSpain, J.
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that respondent’s failure to communicate with his child or petitioner is clear and convincing evidence that he *575manifested “an intent to forego his parental rights” so as to support a finding of abandonment (Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g]; [4] [b]; [5] [a]; see Matter of Xena X, 279 AD2d 691, 692 [2001]; cf. Matter of Ronald D., Jr., 282 AD2d 533 [2001]; see Matter of Charles U., 254 AD2d 588, 588-589 [1998]; Matter of Candice K, 245 AD2d 821, 821-822 [1997]; Matter of Jay Scott P., Jr., 244 AD2d 906 [1997]; Matter of Naticia Q., 226 AD2d…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In re Charmaine T.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- In re Jasmine T.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- In re Candice K.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- In re Ronald D.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- In re Naticia Q.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.