Opinion
06-02-2016
In re LIHANNA A., etc., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Marcella H., Respondent–Appellant, St. Dominic's Home, Petitioner–Respondent.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), attorney for the child.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), attorney for the child.
Opinion Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about March 23, 2015, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child, and committed the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's contention that the proceeding to terminate her parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect could not be maintained, since the child had been directly placed in a custodial home, rather than with an authorized agency, is unpreserved, as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see e.g Matter of Seth Jacob S. [Vincent S.], 134 A.D.3d 636, 21 N.Y.S.3d 613 [1st Dept.2015] ). In any event, the argument is unavailing (see Matter of Dale P., 84 N.Y.2d 72, 614 N.Y.S.2d 967, 638 N.E.2d 506 [1994] ; Matter of Anthony Julius A., 231 A.D.2d 462, 647 N.Y.S.2d 212 [1st Dept.1996] ; Matter of Hannah D., 292 A.D.2d 867, 740 N.Y.S.2d 537 [4th Dept.2002] ).
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The record demonstrates that the agency exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen respondent's relationship with the child by referring her to drug treatment programs and by scheduling regular supervised visitation (see Matter of Senaya Simone J. [Andrea J.], 136 A.D.3d 434, 25 N.Y.S.3d 145 [1st Dept.2016] ; Matter of Alexis Alexandra G. [Brandy H.], 134 A.D.3d 547, 548, 23 N.Y.S.3d 13 [1st Dept.2015] ). Despite these diligent efforts, respondent failed to meaningfully address the problems that led to the child's placement by failing to complete a drug treatment program and by relapsing on multiple occasions. She also failed to visit the child regularly (see Matter of Jayden S. [Kim C.], 124 A.D.3d 488, 998 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1st Dept.2015] ; Matter of Alford Isaiah B. [Alford B.], 107 A.D.3d 562, 968 N.Y.S.2d 36 [1st Dept.2013] ; Matter of Jonathan M., 19 A.D.3d 197, 797 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept.2005] lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 798, 801 N.Y.S.2d 560, 835 N.E.2d 329 [2005] ).
The court's finding that it was in the child's best interest to be freed for adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see generally 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 child has been living in the custodial home since she was nine months old, is thriving in the home, and there is no evidence that respondent has planned for the child's future (see Matter of Jaylin Elia G. [Jessica Enid G.], 115 A.D.3d 452, 981 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1st Dept.2014] ).
ACOSTA, J.P., SAXE, GISCHE, WEBBER, KAHN, JJ., concur.