Opinion
2001-02335 2002-00058
Submitted January 29, 2002.
February 19, 2002.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of two dispositional orders of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), both entered April 20, 2001 (one in each proceeding), as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights with respect to the children, and transferred custody and guardianship rights of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services and Catholic Guardian Society for purposes of adoption.
Peter A. Wilner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Joseph T. Gatti, New York, N.Y. (Veronica C. Odom of counsel), for respondent Catholic Guardian Society.
Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Judith Waksberg and Kelley Drye Warren, LLP [Kamee B. Verdrager] of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supports the finding of permanent neglect of each child. The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent attempts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, and that, despite its encouragement, the mother failed to maintain continuous contact with her children, who are now 15 and 8 years old, on a regular basis and failed to plan for their future (see, Social Services Law § 384-b; Matter of [Emmanuel] B., 267 A.D.2d 114). Further, during the relevant time period, the mother failed to avail herself of the drug treatment necessary to enable her to regain custody of her children (see, Matter of [Jordan] D., 271 A.D.2d 350).
In addition, the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing demonstrated that the children's best interests would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing them for adoption by their foster parents, with whom they had bonded and expressed their desire to remain (see, Matter of [Sheila] G., 61 N.Y.2d 368; Matter of [Tiwana] M., 267 A.D.2d 144; Matter of [Brandon] W., 262 A.D.2d 644; Matter of [Maldrina] R, 219 A.D.2d 723; Matter of [Desire Star] H., supra).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.