Opinion
13564, 13563
11-20-2014
In re JESUS MICHAEL P., and another, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Sonia R., Respondent–Appellant, The Children's Aid Society, Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Irena Como of counsel), attorney for the children.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Irena Como of counsel), attorney for the children.
RENWICK, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.
Opinion
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2013 and October 26, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, terminated respondent-appellant mother's parental rights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the children's best interests (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] ). The children are residing with kinship foster parents who are certified to provide for the children's medical needs and who want to adopt them (see Matter of Jada Serenity H., 60 A.D.3d 469, 470, 874 N.Y.S.2d 113 [1st Dept.2009] ). A suspended judgment is not appropriate, because the mother significantly delayed addressing the problems that caused the children to be removed from her care, and those problems remained unresolved at the time of disposition (id. ). In addition, the evidence shows that the mother never presented a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for these children, who have special needs, and that she never sought to modify the court's order suspending visitation (see Matter of Rayshawn F., 36 A.D.3d 429, 430, 827 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1st Dept.2007] ; Matter of Rutherford Roderick T. [Rutherford R.T.], 4 A.D.3d 213, 214, 772 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept.2004] ).