In re Orlando F., 40 N.Y.2d 106 (1976)
r
r
A child can be deemed permanently neglected if the parent fails to substantially and continuously plan for the child’s future, even if the parent maintains contact, and a Law Guardian should be appointed to represent the child in permanent neglect cases.
r
r
Summary
r
This case concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights due to permanent neglect. The New York Foundling Hospital sought to terminate Theodora’s rights to her son, Orlando, arguing she failed to plan for his future. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division modified the order. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that failure to plan for the child’s future is sufficient for a finding of permanent neglect, even if the parent maintains contact. The court also emphasized the importance of appointing a Law Guardian to represent the child’s interests in such proceedings.
r
r
Facts
r
Theodora, classified as “dull normal,” gave birth to Orlando in 1971. Three days later, he was placed in foster care. Theodora visited Orlando sporadically in the first year. A social worker was assigned to the case in September 1972 and attempted to work with Theodora on a plan for Orlando’s future, including securing housing and employment. Theodora missed appointments, failed to secure housing, and did not maintain consistent contact. She eventually stated she was tired of planning. The foster parents wished to adopt Orlando.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The New York Foundling Hospital filed a petition in Family Court to terminate Theodora’s parental rights based on permanent neglect. The Family Court dismissed the petition and ordered Orlando’s return to Theodora. The Appellate Division modified the order, striking the portion ordering Orlando’s return. The Foundling Hospital appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether a parent’s failure to substantially and continuously plan for a child’s future, as required by Family Court Act § 611, is sufficient to support a finding of permanent neglect, even if the parent maintains some contact with the child.
r
2. Whether a Law Guardian should be appointed to represent the child in permanent neglect proceedings.
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because the statute requires either maintaining contact or planning for the future, and the mother failed to demonstrate substantial planning. The court found, as a matter of law, that the petitioner proved Theodora failed to plan for Orlando’s future.
r
2. Yes, because in nearly all circumstances, the Family Court should appoint a Law Guardian to protect the rights and interests of the child.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals focused on the statutory definition of a permanently neglected child, particularly the requirement that the parent fail to