Preview:

[*1]


Decided on October 25, 2006
Family Court, Suffolk County

AS-18166-04/06B

Petitioner's Attorney:
Richard M. Gold, Esq.
1690 Washington Ave., Suite 3
Bohemia, NY 11716
Respondent's Attorney:
Steven Flaumenhaft, Esq.

Sayville, NY 11796 Law Guardian: Jane Bernstein, Esq. Law Guardian Bureau 400 Carleton Avenue Central Islip, NY 11722 County Attorney: Michael Heiser, Esq. 400 Carleton Avenue Central Islip, NY 11722 Ettore Simeone, J.
Petitioner, Mary M.O., filed application dated March 29, 2006, seeking enforcement of the terms of the Judicial Surrender dated October 13, 2004, wherein she agreed to relinquish her parental rights to the child Rebecca O., d.o.b. 2/4/99. Petitioner alleges that the terms of the surrender which provided that "petitioner was to receive four visits per year at reasonable intervals with the child and be entitled to cards, letters and pictures" were violated in that the Department of Social Services (hereinafter referred to as "D.S.S.") has failed to respond to her request for additional visitation since her last visit with the child in November of 2004. The Court conducted a hearing on petitioner's application on July 5, 2006, August 18, 2006, September 26, 2006 and September 29, 2006.
Fact-Finding
Ms. Jamie Jacobs of D.S.S., testified that she was the caseworker assigned to petitioner between November of 2004 and March of 2005, after petitioner agreed to the judicial surrender of the child, Rebecca on October13, 2004. Ms. Jacobs indicated that she was contacted by petitioner, in November of 2004, to arrange for visitation with Rebecca. Ms. Jacobs stated that she was present for the November visitation which occurred at the D.S.S. offices and that petitioner played with the child during visitation but did not display "overt attachment" nor was she "overly affectionate". Further, Ms. Jacobs stated that she was "unsure" of the effect of the visit on the child, but that the child did not seem to recognize respondent as her mother, nor was any "bond" between them evident.
Ms. Jacobs testified that the Foster Mother (hereinafter referred to as "Jane Doe") did not object to the November visitation between petitioner and the child but that when she called Jane Doe in December of 2004 to arrange for visitation, Jane Doe told her that the child was "freed for adoption" and that she believed that once the adoption was finalized, the condition of visitation was no longer valid. Further, Ms. Jacobs stated that Jane Doe asked her why petitioner was still entitled to visitation after she surrendered her parental rights. Ms. Jacobs stated that she explained to Jane Doe that the conditions of the surrender were still valid even after the adoption was finalized. Ms. Jacobs also indicated that she spoke to her supervisor who told her that Jane Doe had agreed to the condition that petitioner receive four visits per year with the child at the time of the surrender and prior to the time the adoption was finalized.Ms. Jacobs also stated that Jane Doe discussed plans to relocate with the child and inquired as to whether the visitation would interfere with her relocation. Jane Doe did not however indicate the place of her intended relocation, but the caseworker told her that despite her plans to relocate, visitation would still have to take place.
Ms. Jacobs stated that petitioner contacted her for visitation in February of 2005, and that she notified caseworker, Donna Vitale, to follow-up with petitioner's request for visitation.
Petitioner, Mary O. testified that for the first six months to a year following the judicial surrender of Rebecca, she called Child Protective Services (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.S.") repeatedly, two to three times per day, without receiving any response. Petitioner stated that she last visited with the child in November of 2004 and was told that it was her "last visit". Petitioner indicated that at a certain point she "gave up" on calling C.P.S. because they never [*2]returned her phone calls and that's when she turned to her attorney, Mr. Gold, for assistance. Petitioner testified that she subsequently found out the child was adopted from her eldest daughter Catherine and not from C.P.S. and last spoke with a caseworker in February of 2005. Additionally, respondent indicated that she was never told about "the new" caseworker, Donna Vitale, but heard about her through her daughter, Jessica. Petitioner claimed that she has had "twenty to thirty" caseworkers assigned to her over the years.
Petitioner testified that not only was she denied visitation in accordance with the terms of surrender, she never received cards, photographs or letters from the child or Jane Doe either. Petitioner explained that she has never sent any photos or letters to the child because she does not know where to send them. Petitioner stated that she has no intention of "undoing" the adoption but wants to enforce the visitation so that she can see the child and "let her know that I still love her and think about her." While petitioner admits that she gave up her rights to a "mother-child" relationship with Rebecca, she stated that she still wants to see her four times per year, as agreed upon in the conditional surrender. Prior to the surrender, petitioner stated that she was supposed to see Rebecca every week, but probably saw her two times per month, due to problems with transportation or illness of the child. Petitioner stated that when she last saw Rebecca in November of 2004 , the child referred to her as "Mary" and told her that "you're not my mother."On cross

Download 2006_52069.pdf

New York Law