Opinion
02-01-2017
In the Matter of DESTINY A.K. (Anonymous), SCO Family of Services, et al., respondents, Barbara M. (Anonymous), appellant.
Helene Bernstein, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, NY (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent SCO Family of Services. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Helene Bernstein, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, NY (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent SCO Family of Services.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal by the mother from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Maria Arias, J.), dated February 23, 2015. The order, after a dispositional hearing, terminated the mother's parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to SCO Family Services for the purpose of adoption. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated February 28, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child.ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly found that she permanently neglected the subject child. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to assist the mother in maintaining contact with the child and planning for the child's future (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 ; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 A.D.3d 1168, 1169, 927 N.Y.S.2d 121 ). These efforts included facilitating visitation, providing the mother with referrals for drug treatment programs and mental health evaluations, advising the mother of the need for her to attend and complete such programs, and advising the mother how to secure adequate housing for herself and the child (see Matter of Giavanna M. [Cynthia M.-B.], 133 A.D.3d 760, 760–761, 20 N.Y.S.3d 141 ; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 A.D.3d 1032, 1033, 896 N.Y.S.2d 470 ; Matter of Arthur C., 66 A.D.3d 1009, 1011, 887 N.Y.S.2d 679 ; Matter of Danielle Joy K., 60 A.D.3d 948, 949, 875 N.Y.S.2d 257 ). Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts, the mother failed to substantially and repeatedly maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ; Matter of Janaesha J.E. [Monasha A.B.], 137 A.D.3d 908, 909, 27 N.Y.S.3d 177 ). In particular, the mother missed numerous supervised visitations with the child and failed to correct issues preventing reunification, such as her anger management problem, her inability to maintain an income, and her lack of appreciation for the child's special needs (see Matter of Janaesha J.E. [Monasha A.B.], 137 A.D.3d at 909, 27 N.Y.S.3d 177; Matter of Sorin P., 58 A.D.3d 743, 744, 873 N.Y.S.2d 89 ; Matter of Ray A., 30 A.D.3d 410, 411, 817 N.Y.S.2d 328 ).
The Family Court also properly determined that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights and free the child for adoption by her foster mother (see Matter of Jordan E.G.L. [Christina D.L.], 108 A.D.3d 546, 547, 967 N.Y.S.2d 840 ; Matter of Todd Andre'D. [Kenyetta L.], 88 A.D.3d 876, 876, 931 N.Y.S.2d 256 ).