Opinion
723 CAF 13-02100
07-02-2015
In the Matter of ALEXANDER S. Steuben County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; David S. and Alecia P., Respondents–Appellants.
Raymond P. Kot, II, Williamsville, for Respondent–Appellant David S. D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth DeV. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant Alecia P. Jessica M. Peaslee, Bath, for Petitioner–Respondent. Christine M. Valkenburgh, Attorney for the Child, Bath.
Raymond P. Kot, II, Williamsville, for Respondent–Appellant David S.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth DeV. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant Alecia P.
Jessica M. Peaslee, Bath, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Christine M. Valkenburgh, Attorney for the Child, Bath.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, respondent father and respondent mother appeal from an order that, inter alia, terminated their parental rights with respect to the subject child and ordered that the child be freed for adoption. We reject the parents' contention that Family Court erred in finding that the child is a permanently neglected child and in terminating the parents' parental rights with respect to him. Petitioner met its burden of establishing “by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the [parents] and [the child] by providing ‘services and other assistance aimed at ameliorating or resolving the problems preventing [the child's] return to [the parents'] care’ ..., and that the [parents] failed substantially and continuously to plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so ... Although the [parents] participated in ... services offered by petitioner, [they] did not successfully address or gain insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child and continued to prevent the child's safe return” (Matter of Giovanni K., 62 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 846, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 715, 2009 WL 1851454 ; see § 384–b [7 ][a] ). Contrary to the parents' further contentions, we conclude that the court properly denied their respective requests for a suspended judgment (see Matter of Lillianna G. [Orena G.], 104 A.D.3d 1224, 1225, 960 N.Y.S.2d 805 ; Matter of Dahmani M. [Jana M.], 104 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 961 N.Y.S.2d 672 ). We also conclude that the court properly denied the mother's request for assignment of new counsel inasmuch as her request was vague, unsubstantiated, and did not demonstrate good cause warranting a substitution of counsel (see Matter of Wiley v. Musabyemariya, 118 A.D.3d 898, 900–901, 988 N.Y.S.2d 259, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 907, 2014 WL 5369092 ; see also People v. Porto, 16 N.Y.3d 93, 101–102, 917 N.Y.S.2d 74, 942 N.E.2d 283 ; People v. MacLean, 48 A.D.3d 1215, 1217, 850 N.Y.S.2d 819, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 866, 860 N.Y.S.2d 492, 890 N.E.2d 255, reconsideration denied 11 N.Y.3d 790, 866 N.Y.S.2d 617, 896 N.E.2d 103 ). Finally, we have reviewed the father's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.