Opinion
10-13-2016
In re DESIREE M., and Another, Dependent Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Aythea M., Respondent–Appellant, Catholic Guardian Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marianne Allegro of counsel), attorney for the children.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marianne Allegro of counsel), attorney for the children.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, FEINMAN, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2015, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother permanently neglected her son and daughter, terminated her parental rights to the children, and committed their care and custody to the petitioner-agency Catholic Guardian Services and the Commissioner for Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supported the findings of permanent neglect (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ). The agency expended diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between respondent and the children by discussing with respondent what she needed to do to complete her service plan; attempting to locate kinship resources for the children; referring respondent to mental health treatment, domestic violence counseling, anger management, and parental skills training; assisting respondent in seeking housing, including conducting an expedited home study of a kinship resource; monitoring respondent while the children were temporarily discharged back to her in 2010; and scheduling visitation (see Matter of Ebonee Annastasha F. [Crystal Arlene F.], 116 A.D.3d 576, 985 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept.2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 906, 2014 WL 2891997 [2014] ). The fact that respondent refused housing assistance and failed to sign releases so that caseworkers could verify her compliance with services rendered the agency's diligent efforts unavailing (see Matter of Julian Raul S. [Oscar S.], 111 A.D.3d 456, 974 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1st Dept.2013] ; Matter of Kimberly C., 37 A.D.3d 192, 829 N.Y.S.2d 84 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 813, 836 N.Y.S.2d 553, 868 N.E.2d 236 [2007] ).
In addition, clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that respondent permanently neglected the children by failing to plan for their future, because she failed to complete a mother-child program, mental health services and anger management as required by her service plan, never gained insight into the reasons why the children were placed into foster care or advanced a realistic, feasible plan for their future care during the relevant statutory period (see Matter of Emily Jane Star R. [Evelyn R.], 117 A.D.3d 646, 987 N.Y.S.2d 319 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Jaileen X.M. [Annette M.], 111 A.D.3d 502, 974 N.Y.S.2d 440 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 859, 2014 WL 113785 [2014] ; Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 A.D.3d 285, 839 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept.2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 812, 846 N.Y.S.2d 602, 877 N.E.2d 652 [2007] ; Matter of Galeann F., 11 A.D.3d 255, 784 N.Y.S.2d 482 [1st Dept.2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 703, 790 N.Y.S.2d 650, 824 N.E.2d 51 [2005] ). In addition, the record shows that respondent failed to obtain suitable housing for the children and missed a number of scheduled supervised visits with them (see Matter of Jonathan Jose T., 44 A.D.3d 508, 843 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1st Dept.2007] ).
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that it was in the children's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights and free them for adoption (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] ; Matter of Mark Eric R.
[Juelle Virginia G.], 80 A.D.3d 518, 915 N.Y.S.2d 262 [1st Dept.2011] ). A suspended judgment was not warranted here, because the progress made by respondent in completing a domestic violence class in 2014 and visiting the children in the months preceding the dispositional determination was insufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the children's unsettled familial status (see Matter of Chandel B., 61 A.D.3d 546, 547, 877 N.Y.S.2d 63 [1st Dept.2009], citing Matter of Maryline A., 22 A.D.3d 227, 228, 802 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept.2005] ).
Respondent concedes that she did not preserve the issue of whether it was error for the Family Court not to interview her daughter in camera. If we were to review the issue, we would find that there is no merit to respondent's contention, because Social Service Law § 384–b(3)(k) contains no such requirement (see Matter of Georges P. [Yvelisse A.], 103 A.D.3d 570, 570, 960 N.Y.S.2d 95 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 1876583 [2013], citing Matter of Jayden C. [Michelle R.], 82 A.D.3d 674, 675, 923 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2011] ).