Opinion
No. CAF 07-01599.
December 31, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (John J. Rivoli, J.), entered June 27, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, terminated respondent's parental rights.
PALOMA A. CAPANNA, PENFIELD, FOR Respondent-Appellant.
DANIEL M. DELAUS, JR., COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (PAUL N. HUMPHREY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-Respondent.
REKHA JAIN, LAW GUARDIAN, PITTSFORD, FOR SEANDELL L. AND SHAQUELL L.G.
Before: Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, revoked a suspended judgment entered upon a finding of permanent neglect and terminated her parental rights with respect to her children. Contrary to the contention of the mother, Family Court's determination following a hearing that she violated the conditions of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Aaron S., 15 AD3d 585; Matter of Veronica W., 289 AD2d 1055, 1056, lv denied 97 NY2d 613). The mother's further contentions that petitioner failed to establish that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship and that the evidence did not support a finding of permanent neglect are "not properly before us because [those issues were] conclusively determined in the prior proceeding to terminate [the mother's] parental rights" ( Matter of Ronald O., 43 AD3d 1351, 1351). We reject the mother's contention that the court failed to conduct a dispositional hearing inasmuch as "[a] hearing on a petition alleging the violation of a suspended judgment is part of the dispositional phase of a permanent neglect proceeding" ( Matter of Saboor C., 303 AD2d 1022, 1023; see Matter of Carlos D., 24 AD3d 1263, lv denied 6 NY3d 710). The evidence supports the court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the children ( see Ronald O., 43 AD3d 1351; Aaron S., 15 AD3d 585). We have considered the mother's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.