Opinion
877 CAF 14-01769
07-02-2015
In the Matter of RENYHIA M. and Rahmier M. Commissioner of the Ontario County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Shawna M., Respondent–Appellant.
Susan Gray Jones, Canandaigua, for Respondent–Appellant. John W. Park, County Attorney, Canandaigua (Holly A. Adams of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent. Joseph S. Dressner, Attorney for the Children, Canandaigua.
Susan Gray Jones, Canandaigua, for Respondent–Appellant.
John W. Park, County Attorney, Canandaigua (Holly A. Adams of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Joseph S. Dressner, Attorney for the Children, Canandaigua.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Family Court properly granted the petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother with respect to the subject children on the ground of permanent neglect. The mother admitted that she permanently neglected the children, and the record of the dispositional hearing supports the court's determination that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of La'Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 A.D.3d 1600, 1602, 925 N.Y.S.2d 741, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 709, 2011 WL 4089938 ; Matter of Eleydie R. [Maria R.], 77 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 907 N.Y.S.2d 908 ).
We reject the mother's contention that the court abused its discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment. “The court's focus at the dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child[ren,] ... [and] [t]he court's assessment that the [mother] was not likely to change her behavior is entitled to great deference” (Matter of Kyle S., 11 A.D.3d 935, 936, 782 N.Y.S.2d 213 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Furthermore, “the record of the dispositional hearing establishes that ... any progress that [the mother] made was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren's] unsettled familial status” (Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie F.], 126 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 5 N.Y.S.3d 660, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 910, 2015 WL 3605100 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Lastly, we reject the mother's contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel “inasmuch as [she] did not demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged shortcomings” (Matter of Brown v. Gandy, 125 A.D.3d 1389, 1390, 3 N.Y.S.3d 486 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.