Opinion
12-31-2015
In the Matter of AALIYAH H. Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Mary H. and Isaiah H., Respondents–Appellants. (Appeal No. 1.).
Stephen L. Cimino, Syracuse, for Respondent–Appellant Mary H. D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth Dev. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant Isaiah H. Robert A. Durr, County Attorney, Syracuse (Catherine Z. Gilmore of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent. Christopher E. Burke, Attorney for the Child, Syracuse.
Stephen L. Cimino, Syracuse, for Respondent–Appellant Mary H.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth Dev. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant Isaiah H.Robert A. Durr, County Attorney, Syracuse (Catherine Z. Gilmore of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Christopher E. Burke, Attorney for the Child, Syracuse.
MEMORANDUM:In appeal No. 1, respondents appeal from an order in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and Social Services Law § 384–b that terminated their parental rights with respect to their child. In appeal No. 2, respondent mother appeals from an order in a similar proceeding terminating her parental rights with respect to another child.
Contrary to the contentions of respondents in both appeals, Family Court properly terminated their parental rights with respect to their child in appeal No. 1, and the mother's child in appeal No. 2, on the ground of permanent neglect. Respondents admitted that they permanently neglected their respective 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 respondents' respective 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 ). Contrary to the mother's contention in both appeals, the record supports the court's determination that a suspended judgment would not serve the best interests of the children (see Matter of Alex C., Jr. [Alex C., Sr.], 114 A.D.3d 1149, 1150, 980 N.Y.S.2d 187, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 901, 2014 WL 1704499 ; Matter of Tiara B. [Torrence B.], 70 A.D.3d 1307, 1307–1308, 895 N.Y.S.2d 622, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 709, 2010 WL 1754796 ; see generally Matter of Mercedes L., 12 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 785 N.Y.S.2d 267 ; Matter of Saboor C., 303 A.D.2d 1022, 1023, 757 N.Y.S.2d 192 ). The mother's "negligible progress" in addressing the issues that resulted in the children's removal from her custody was " ‘not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren]'s unsettled familial status' " (Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 A.D.3d 1524, 1525, 964 N.Y.S.2d 445 ; see Matter of Joanna P. [Patricia M.], 101 A.D.3d 1751, 1752, 957 N.Y.S.2d 552, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 1235506 ; Matter of Keegan JJ. [Amanda JJ.], 72 A.D.3d 1159, 1161–1162, 898 N.Y.S.2d 312 ).
Respondent father further contends in appeal No. 1 that, because the children had different parentage, they had different interests, thereby creating a conflict of interest for the Attorney for the Children (AFC), who represented both children at the same hearing. The father failed to preserve that contention for our review "inasmuch as [ ]he made no motion to remove the AFC" (Matter of Swinson v. Dobson, 101 A.D.3d 1686, 1687, 956 N.Y.S.2d 765, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 862, 2012 WL 7801756 ; see Matter of Ordona v. Cothern, 126 A.D.3d 1544, 1546, 6 N.Y.S.3d 860 ; see generally Matter of Nelissa O. v. Danny C., 70 A.D.3d 572, 573, 894 N.Y.S.2d 431 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.