Opinion
11-10-2015
In re JAMES S., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,Desthaney S., Respondent–Appellant,Leake and Watts Services, Inc., Petitioner–Respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant. Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Kristin K. Cheney of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child. MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, JJ.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant.
Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Kristin K. Cheney of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, JJ.
Opinion
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2014, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect, and committed custody and guardianship of the child jointly to Leake and Watts Services, Inc. and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
1 The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence which demonstrates that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, referring respondent for various parenting programs and mental health services, as well as scheduling and facilitating visitation with the child (see Matter of Ashley R. [Latarsha R.], 103 A.D.3d 573, 574, 962 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2436351 [2013]; see also Matter of Marissa Tiffany C.-W. [Faith W.], 125 A.D.3d 512, 1 N.Y.S.3d 802 [1st Dept.2015]; Matter of Alani G. [Angelica G.], 116 A.D.3d 629, 984 N.Y.S.2d 362 [1st Dept.2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 4548448 [2014] ).
Despite these efforts, however, respondent failed to visit regularly, follow through with the agency's referrals for services and programs to reunite her with the child, or otherwise plan for the child's return, including obtaining suitable housing, improving quality of visits, or understanding the child's special needs and engaging in his care (see Matter of Alliyah C. [Colleen C.], 113 A.D.3d 562, 563, 980 N.Y.S.2d 16 [1st Dept.2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 901, 2014 WL 1775795 [2014]; Matter of Tashameeka Valerie P. [Priscilla P.], 102 A.D.3d 614, 959 N.Y.S.2d 63 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 1760930 [2013] ).
2 In addition, the record supports the determination that termination is in the best interests of the child under the circumstances, and suspended judgment is unwarranted as respondent failed to demonstrate a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child (see Matter of Charles Jahmel M. (Charles E.M.), 124 A.D.3d 496, 497, 2 N.Y.S.3d 98 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 905, 2015 WL 2105786 [2015]; Matter of Jaelyn Hennesy F. (Jose F.), 113 A.D.3d 411, 412, 978 N.Y.S.2d 154 [1st Dept.2014] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.