Opinion
2016–11395 Docket No. B–5087–14
12-20-2017
In the MATTER OF ETHAN A.R. (Anonymous), also known as Ethan R. (Anonymous). New York Foundling Hospital, respondent; Noelle M.R. (Anonymous), also known as Noelle R. (Anonymous), appellant.
Adewole Agbayewa, Fresh Meadows, NY, for appellant. Daniel Gartenstein, Long Island City, NY, for respondent. Joseph A. Fredericks, N. Bellmore, NY, attorney for the child.
Adewole Agbayewa, Fresh Meadows, NY, for appellant.
Daniel Gartenstein, Long Island City, NY, for respondent.
Joseph A. Fredericks, N. Bellmore, NY, attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Joan L. Piccirillo, J.), dated October 11, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, revoked an order of suspended judgment of that court dated May 11, 2015, terminated the mother's parental rights to the subject child, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the New York Foundling Hospital and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order dated October 11, 2016, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In March 2014, the New York Foundling Hospital (hereinafter the petitioner) commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect. Upon the mother's admission, the Family Court found that she permanently neglected the child, and an order of suspended judgment was issued upon certain conditions for a period of one year. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition alleging that the mother had violated the conditions of the suspended judgment. At the ensuing hearing, evidence was adduced that the mother had been involuntarily hospitalized after she had failed to inform her therapist or the petitioner that she was experiencing certain symptoms of her mental illness. In addition, she had missed three scheduled appointments or meetings with the child's health care providers. The court, inter alia, found that the mother failed to comply with certain conditions of the suspended judgment, revoked the order of suspended judgment, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.
"The Family Court may revoke a suspended judgment after a violation hearing if it finds, upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the parent failed to comply with one or more of the conditions of the suspended judgment" ( Matter of Hypnotic L.D. [Alexa R.N.] , 145 A.D.3d 720, 721, 43 N.Y.S.3d 415;see Matter of Derrick D.A. [Shavonna L.L.D.] , 134 A.D.3d 928, 928, 22 N.Y.S.3d 472 ). "When determining compliance with a suspended judgment, it is the parent's obligation to demonstrate that progress has been made to overcome the specific problems which led to the removal of the child. A parent's attempt to comply with the literal provisions of the suspended judgment is not enough" ( Matter of Selena L. [Susan B.L.] , 140 A.D.3d 769, 770, 33 N.Y.S.3d 353;see Matter of Breana R.S. [Triana B.–S.] , 148 A.D.3d 1157, 1158, 49 N.Y.S.3d 182 ; Matter of Kimble G., II [Kimble G.] , 108 A.D.3d 534, 535, 969 N.Y.S.2d 112 ; Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.] , 95 A.D.3d 1006, 1008, 944 N.Y.S.2d 214 ).Here, the Family Court properly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother failed to comply with certain conditions of the suspended judgment, including the conditions requiring her to "cooperate with mental health treatment and medication management as required by her mental health providers," and to "participate in and cooperate with all services for the subject child" and "cooperate with recommendations made by said child's therapists" (see Matter of Selena L. [Susan B.L.] , 140 A.D.3d at 770, 33 N.Y.S.3d 353; Matter of Darren V. , 61 A.D.3d 986, 987, 878 N.Y.S.2d 171 ).
Further, the hearing evidence supported the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the mother's parental rights and free him for adoption (see Matter of William U.L. [Rachel D.H.], 139 A.D.3d 732, 733, 31 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; Matter of Ayame O.–M. , 63 A.D.3d 1069, 1071, 881 N.Y.S.2d 169 ; Matter of Darren V. , 61 A.D.3d at 988, 878 N.Y.S.2d 171 ).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.