Matter Of Annette B Case Study
Matter of Annette B.
CJ 310 Matter of Annette B.
Matter of Annette B.
In the Matter of Annette B., the father made periodic and insignificant efforts to find his child once his confinement was over with. There was inadequate evidence to disprove a conclusion of abandonment. There was very little the dad could do while incarcerated. The grandmother of the child either could not or would not help locate the mother, and the Department of Social Services in New York wouldn’t help the grandmother. Not one thing in records the records recommends that the father had been notified of the facts that the mother had moved to Orange County, New York, or that his daughter was in the custody of the State. However, it still should have encouraged the father to one way or another try to track down his daughter to keep contact with her. …show more content…
In my opinion, the letdown of the Department of Social Services to inform Annette B’s father that his daughter was a ward of the state violated the specifications of the Family Court Act and successfully prohibited him from interacting and communicating with her in the six-month period instantly before the filing of the abandonment petition against him.
A parent in Joseph’s position who did not want to lose custody of his child would have been more determined to find Annette and communicate and interact with her. Therefore I do not feel like he justifies the right to be a part of her life. Then he is not even fighting for full custody. It seems if he just wants to be able to deal with her at his convenience. This in my opinion is only going to cause more confusion in the child’s life. He should even feel embarrassed to even be fighting for this if it is not for full
custody.
Family Court Act § 1035 (d) simply provides that "where only one of the child 's parents is the respondent" in a proceeding to determine abuse or neglect, "service of the summons and petition shall also be ordered on the child 's other parent." The other parent must also be served with a notice of the petition from the court advising him or her, among others, "of the right to appear and participate in the proceeding as an interested party intervener for the purpose of seeking temporary and permanent custody of the child and in all phases of dispositional proceedings" (Family Ct Act § 1035 [d]). At this point the father was not in this case served with the summons and petition against the mother. This would have immediately alerted him that his daughter was in the custody of Orange County DSS. The situation should also be distinguished that the Legislature in recent times amended Family Court Act § 1035 (d), requiring the notice of pendency to provide greater information with respect to the rights of nonrespondent parents and grandparents to seek custody (LAWYERS 2003, Ch. 526).
In concluding, I honestly do not understand what Annette’s father Joseph was trying to fight for if he was not interested in full custody. In my opinion, if he wanted what was best for her he should have just let it go. If the courts gave him what he wanted, how long would he visit and communicate with her? Would he go back to jail for another crime? All of this would be bad for Annette. She deserves the best and Joseph being in her life was probably not good.
References
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, AND SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ. NEAL D. FUTERFAS, WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., FOR APPELLANT.CATHERINE M. BARTLETT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, GOSHEN, N.Y. , THE MATTER OF ANNETTE B., December 22, 2003-NY…(n.d.) Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/html.
CJ 310 Matter of Annette B.
Matter of Annette B.
In the Matter of Annette B., the father made periodic and insignificant efforts to find his child once his confinement was over with. There was inadequate evidence to disprove a conclusion of abandonment. There was very little the dad could do while incarcerated. The grandmother of the child either could not or would not help locate the mother, and the Department of Social Services in New York wouldn’t help the grandmother. Not one thing in records the records recommends that the father had been notified of the facts that the mother had moved to Orange County, New York, or that his daughter was in the custody of the State. However, it still should have encouraged the father to one way or another try to track down his daughter to keep contact with her. …show more content…
In my opinion, the letdown of the Department of Social Services to inform Annette B’s father that his daughter was a ward of the state violated the specifications of the Family Court Act and successfully prohibited him from interacting and communicating with her in the six-month period instantly before the filing of the abandonment petition against him.
A parent in Joseph’s position who did not want to lose custody of his child would have been more determined to find Annette and communicate and interact with her. Therefore I do not feel like he justifies the right to be a part of her life. Then he is not even fighting for full custody. It seems if he just wants to be able to deal with her at his convenience. This in my opinion is only going to cause more confusion in the child’s life. He should even feel embarrassed to even be fighting for this if it is not for full
custody.
Family Court Act § 1035 (d) simply provides that "where only one of the child 's parents is the respondent" in a proceeding to determine abuse or neglect, "service of the summons and petition shall also be ordered on the child 's other parent." The other parent must also be served with a notice of the petition from the court advising him or her, among others, "of the right to appear and participate in the proceeding as an interested party intervener for the purpose of seeking temporary and permanent custody of the child and in all phases of dispositional proceedings" (Family Ct Act § 1035 [d]). At this point the father was not in this case served with the summons and petition against the mother. This would have immediately alerted him that his daughter was in the custody of Orange County DSS. The situation should also be distinguished that the Legislature in recent times amended Family Court Act § 1035 (d), requiring the notice of pendency to provide greater information with respect to the rights of nonrespondent parents and grandparents to seek custody (LAWYERS 2003, Ch. 526).
In concluding, I honestly do not understand what Annette’s father Joseph was trying to fight for if he was not interested in full custody. In my opinion, if he wanted what was best for her he should have just let it go. If the courts gave him what he wanted, how long would he visit and communicate with her? Would he go back to jail for another crime? All of this would be bad for Annette. She deserves the best and Joseph being in her life was probably not good.
References
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, AND SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ. NEAL D. FUTERFAS, WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., FOR APPELLANT.CATHERINE M. BARTLETT, COUNTY ATTORNEY, GOSHEN, N.Y. , THE MATTER OF ANNETTE B., December 22, 2003-NY…(n.d.) Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/html.