Opinion
2002-09777.
December 1, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), entered September 25, 2002, which, after a hearing, in effect, terminated her parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption. The appeal brings up for review a fact-finding order of the same court entered August 19, 2002, finding that the mother had permanently neglected the child.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Amy L. Colvin, Halesite, N.Y., for appellant.
Robert J. Cimino, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (Michele T. Pilo of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
Before: THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence ( see Social Services Law § 384-b[g]), that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between the mother and the subject child, who was in the petitioner's custody for several years ( see Social Services Law § 384-b[f][2], [3]; Matter of Joyce Marie B., 305 A.D.2d 589, 590; Matter of Luno Scott A., 292 A.D.2d 602, 603; Matter of La'Quan De'Vota H., 259 A.D.2d 486, 487). The petitioner also established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother failed to plan for the child's future during that period of time ( see Social Services Law § 384-b[c]; Matter of Shane Anthony P., 307 A.D.2d 297, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 513; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Kenneth D., 213 A.D.2d 714; Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d 881, 882-883; Matter of Sonia H., 177 A.D.2d 575; Matter of Travis Lee G., 169 A.D.2d 769, 770). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother had permanently neglected the child ( see Social Services Law § 384-b[a]).
Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly terminated the mother's parental rights ( see Matter of Avery Curtis Foster Joe D., 306 A.D.2d 276, 278).
The mother was not deprived of her right to the effective assistance of counsel ( see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]; Matter of Bryan W., 299 A.D.2d 929, 930; Matter of Jimmy H., 274 A.D.2d 430).
S. MILLER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.