Opinion
06-10-2016
In the Matter of ALEXUS R.L. Genesee County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent, Ashley K., Respondent–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
David J. Pajak, Alden, for Respondent–Appellant. Paula A. Campbell, Batavia, for Petitioner–Respondent. Sara E. Rook, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.
David J. Pajak, Alden, for Respondent–Appellant.
Paula A. Campbell, Batavia, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Sara E. Rook, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM: In appeal No. 1, respondent mother appeals from an order that terminated her parental rights with respect to her child Alexus on the ground of permanent neglect, and in appeal No. 2, she appeals from an identical order that terminated her parental rights with respect to her child Jordin on the same ground. We affirm.
On appeal, the mother does not challenge Family Court's determination that she permanently neglected the subject 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 the mother's parental rights and freeing them 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 she made only minimal progress in addressing the issues that resulted in the children's removal from her custody, which 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 ). Consequently, we agree with 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 ).
The mother failed to preserve for our review her further contention that the court should have awarded custody of the subject children to their maternal grandmother, because she did not seek that result at the dispositional hearing (see generally Matter of Atreyu G. [Jana M.], 91 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 938 N.Y.S.2d 686, lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 801, 2012 WL 1502691 ; Matter of Christian A., 6 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 775 N.Y.S.2d 698, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 604, 785 N.Y.S.2d 21, 818 N.E.2d 663 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.