From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Tsulyn R.A.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 27, 2016
135 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

01-27-2016

In the Matter of TSULYN R.A. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Deborah A. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant; Barbara A. (Anonymous), nonparty-respondent.

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., for respondent-appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christopher J. Inzero of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Lisa F. Colin, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.


George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.

Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christopher J. Inzero of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Lisa F. Colin, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Westchester County (David Klein, J.), entered December 20, 2014, and (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of that court (Mary Anne Scattaretico–Naber, J.), entered February 19, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon the decision, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Westchester County Departmentof Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718 ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition which found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Westchester County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the agency established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen her relationship with the subject child, which efforts were specifically tailored to the mother's individual situation (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g], [7] ; see Matter of Maria Ann P., 296 A.D.2d 574, 745 N.Y.S.2d 717 ). These efforts included, inter alia, making numerous referrals to mental health programs and parenting services, following up with those programs and others suggested by the mother, encouraging the mother's compliance with the programs, informing the mother of the child's special needs and progress in services, and facilitating visitation (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][f] ; Matter of Megan R.W. [Connie Lynn M. ], 69 A.D.3d 737, 737–738, 893 N.Y.S.2d 195 ). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future. The mother failed to successfully complete a mental health program or gain insight into her previous behavior and the need for services, and missed numerous supervised visitations with the child (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 842, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775 ; Matter of Nicholas A.N. [Youvonne N. ], 124 A.D.3d 896, 998 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; Matter of Joshua E.R. [Yolaine R. ], 123 A.D.3d 723, 726, 997 N.Y.S.2d 739 ). In this proceeding based on permanent neglect, the testimony of a psychiatrist or psychologist was not required (see Matter of Hime Y., 52 N.Y.2d 242, 250–251, 437 N.Y.S.2d 286, 418 N.E.2d 1305 ; cf. Social Services Law § 384–b[6][c], [e] ). There was clear and convincing evidence of the mother's permanent neglect of the child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[3] [g] ).

Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that termination of the mother's parental rights, rather than the entry of a suspended judgment, was in the child's best interests (see Family Ct. Act § 631 ; Matter of Essence L.M. [Eddy M. ], 128 A.D.3d 826, 827, 9 N.Y.S.3d 369 ).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

In re Tsulyn R.A.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan 27, 2016
135 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

In re Tsulyn R.A.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TSULYN R.A. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 27, 2016

Citations

135 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
26 N.Y.S.3d 533
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 497

Citing Cases

In re Ja'Rell D.F.

Contrary to the mother's contention, at the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner established, by clear and…

Graham Windham Servs. to Families & Children v. Charlence E. H. (In re Ja'Rell D. F.)

Contrary to the mother's contention, at the fact-finding hearing, the petitioner established, by clear and…