Opinion
1161 CAF 19-00692
12-23-2020
In the MATTER OF DANTE S. Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Kathryne T. and Timothy S., Respondents-Appellants.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT KATHRYNE T. DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT TIMOTHY S. REBECCA L. DAVISON-MARCH, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. MARY S. HAJDU, LAKEWOOD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT KATHRYNE T.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT TIMOTHY S.
REBECCA L. DAVISON-MARCH, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
MARY S. HAJDU, LAKEWOOD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother and respondent father each appeal from an order that, inter alia, terminated their parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner. Contrary to respondents' contentions, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between respondents and the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a] ). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that petitioner, inter alia, developed a service plan; helped respondents obtain public assistance recertification and mental health treatment, including attachment therapy; provided referrals for domestic violence services, parenting classes, housing, and employment; provided transportation and parenting instruction; and facilitated supervised and unsupervised visitation (see Matter of Soraya S. [Kathryne T.] , 158 A.D.3d 1305, 1305-1306, 70 N.Y.S.3d 737 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 908, 2018 WL 2728503 [2018] ). We reject respondents' contentions that petitioner did not prove that they permanently neglected the child (see Matter of Valentina M.S. [Darrell W.] , 154 A.D.3d 1309, 1311, 63 N.Y.S.3d 625 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Petitioner established that, despite its efforts, respondents failed to plan appropriately for the child's future (see Soraya S. , 158 A.D.3d at 1306, 70 N.Y.S.3d 737 ; Matter of Burke H. [Richard H.] , 134 A.D.3d 1499, 1500-1501, 23 N.Y.S.3d 776 [4th Dept. 2015] ).
The mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that Family Court abused its discretion in not imposing a suspended judgment (see Burke H. , 134 A.D.3d at 1502, 23 N.Y.S.3d 776 ). In any event, a suspended judgment was not warranted under the circumstances inasmuch as " ‘any progress made by the [mother] prior to the dispositional determination was insufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the [child's] unsettled familial status’ " ( Matter of Cyle F. [Alexander F.] , 155 A.D.3d 1626, 1628, 64 N.Y.S.3d 842 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 911, 71 N.Y.S.3d 5, 94 N.E.3d 487 [2018] ).
We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the order.