Opinion
2014-04-29
In re ALANI G., and Another, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Angelica G., Respondent–Appellant, Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Petitioner–Respondent.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant. Joseph T. Gatti, New York, for respondent.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant. Joseph T. Gatti, New York, for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Adira Hulkower of counsel), attorney for the children.
GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 1, 2012, which, inter alia, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The findings of permanent neglect were supported by clear and convincing evidence ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7] ). The record demonstrates that the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship, which included providing the mother with referrals to parenting skills classes and mental health services, and scheduling regular visitation. However, the mother failed, during the statutorily relevant time period, to plan for the children's return by refusing to avail herself of the assistance of a visiting coach and of a special needs parenting course, which would have assisted her with understanding the children's special needs ( see Matter of Racquel Olivia M., 37 A.D.3d 279, 830 N.Y.S.2d 96 [1st Dept.2007],lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 812, 836 N.Y.S.2d 551, 868 N.E.2d 235 [2007] ). The mother also failed to consistently visit the children during the statutorily relevant time period ( see Matter of Evan Matthew A. [Jocelyn Yvette A.], 91 A.D.3d 538, 938 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept.2012];Matter of Amilya Jayla S. [Princess Debbie A.], 83 A.D.3d 582, 923 N.Y.S.2d 441 [1st Dept.2011] ).
A preponderance of the evidence shows that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children, who had been in foster care for most of their lives and needed permanency ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). A suspended judgment is not warranted under the circumstances because there was no evidence that the mother had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the children, together with the two older siblings who required extensive services for their special needs. Moreover, the expert witness presented by the children's attorney testified that returning the children to the mother's care would be damaging for them and could cause them to “regress” ( see Matter of Rayshawn F., 36 A.D.3d 429, 430, 827 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept.2007]; Matter of Rutherford Roderick T. [Rutherford R.T.], 4 A.D.3d 213, 214, 772 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept.2004] ).