Opinion
2014-07-16
In the Matter of MELISHA M.H. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, respondent; Sheila B.R. (Anonymous), also known as Sheila R. (Anonymous), also known as Sheila B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Kenyetta S.R. (Anonymous), also known as Kenyetta R. (Anonymous), also known as Kenyetta B. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, respondent; Sheila B.R. (Anonymous), also known as Sheila R. (Anonymous), also known as Sheila B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2).
Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C, Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent.
Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C, Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent.
Judith Ellen Stone, Merrick, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.) (one as to each child), both dated February 20, 2013, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglected the children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and SCO Family of Services for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subject children. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 380–381, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139;Matter of Darryl A.H. [Olga Z.], 109 A.D.3d 824, 824, 971 N.Y.S.2d 134). These efforts included facilitating visitation, providing the mother with referrals to drug treatment and counseling programs, and advising the mother of the need for her to attend and complete such programs. Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the children's future ( see Matter of Darryl A.H. [Olga Z.], 109 A.D.3d at 824, 971 N.Y.S.2d 134;Matter of Joseph W. [Monica W.], 95 A.D.3d 1347, 1347–1348, 944 N.Y.S.2d 915;Matter of Fatima G., 64 A.D.3d 652, 653, 883 N.Y.S.2d 130).
Contrary to the mother's contention, most of the progress notes in the petitioner's case file that were offered into evidence were properly admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518[a]; Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 122–123, 421 N.Y.S.2d 863, 397 N.E.2d 374;Matter of Male G., 97 Misc.2d 283, 284, 411 N.Y.S.2d 102 [Fam. Ct., N.Y. County] ). In any event, even if some of the progress notes were improperly admitted, the mother's own testimony was sufficient to support a finding of permanent neglect ( see Matter of Lindsay N., 300 A.D.2d 216, 217, 751 N.Y.S.2d 739).
Furthermore, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the mother's parental rights ( see Matter of Jewels E.R. [Julien R.], 104 A.D.3d 773, 773–774, 961 N.Y.S.2d 248;Matter of Malen Sansa V. [Nancy J.], 70 A.D.3d 707, 708, 894 N.Y.S.2d 98;Matter of Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1005, 1007, 817 N.Y.S.2d 309;Matter of Desire Star H., 202 A.D.2d 582, 584, 609 N.Y.S.2d 268).
The mother's remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 A.D.3d 937, 938, 946 N.Y.S.2d 874;Matter of Yamillette G. [Marlene M.], 74 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 906 N.Y.S.2d 271). BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MALTESE and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.