Opinion
2011-10-11
In the Matter of DARRNELL G. (Anonymous), also known as Darnell G. (Anonymous), also known as Darrnell H. (Anonymous), also known as Darnell H. (Anonymous).SCO Family of Services, respondent;Robin Denise H. (Anonymous), also known as Robin H. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)In the Matter of Davin G. (Anonymous), also known as Darnell H. (Anonymous).SCO Family of Services, respondent;Robin Denise H. (Anonymous), also known as Robin H. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)In the Matter of Anthony Dontyrell G. (Anonymous), also known as Anthony G. (Anonymous), also known as Anthony H. (Anonymous).SCO Family of Services, respondent;Robin Denise H. (Anonymous), also known as Robin H. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3).
Jeffrey C. Bluth, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent.Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Judith Waksberg of counsel; Laura Dillon on the brief), attorney for the children.
In three related proceedings to terminate parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from three orders of fact-finding and disposition (one for each child) of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), all dated June 30, 2010, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she had 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 the petitioner, SCO Family of Services, for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly determined that the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, facilitating regular visitation with the children and repeatedly referring the mother to drug treatment programs ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824; Matter of Zechariah J. [ Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653; Matter of John M. [ Raymond K.], 82 A.D.3d 1100, 919 N.Y.S.2d 346; Matter of Elijah P. [ C.I.P.], 76 A.D.3d 631, 632, 907 N.Y.S.2d 269). Despite those efforts, the mother failed to plan for the future of the children by failing to complete a drug treatment program ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [c]; Matter of John M. [ Raymond K.], 82 A.D.3d at 1100–1101, 919 N.Y.S.2d 346; Matter of Malen Sansa V. [ Nancy J.], 70 A.D.3d 707, 708, 894 N.Y.S.2d 98; Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d 901, 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640; Matter of Noelia T., 61 A.D.3d 983, 984, 879 N.Y.S.2d 155). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the children.
Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the mother's parental rights, thus freeing the children for adoption by their foster parents ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824; Matter of Zechariah J. [ Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d at 1088–1089, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653; Matter of Amber D.C. [ Angelica C.], 79 A.D.3d 865, 866, 912 N.Y.S.2d 431; Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d at 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640).
DILLON, J.P., BELEN, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.