Opinion
14932 Dkt. No. B-17764/18 Case No. 2020–03933
12-28-2021
In the MATTER OF FAITH J., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Kimberly J., Respondent–Appellant, v. Graham Windham, Petitioner–Respondent.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant. Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.
Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the child.
Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Gonza´lez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered August 14, 2020, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the determination that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, developing a plan for appropriate services such as mental health treatment, dyadic therapy to strengthen the mother's bond with the child, assistance with establishing appropriate housing, and random drug tests, making referrals for those services, scheduling regular visitation with the child, and giving the mother MetroCards for her traveling costs (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [c], [f] ; Matter of Antonio James L. [Eric David L.], 156 A.D.3d 554, 554, 67 N.Y.S.3d 615 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Felicia Malon Rogue J. [Lena J.], 146 A.D.3d 725, 726, 46 N.Y.S.3d 66 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Although it is undisputed that the mother obtained suitable housing and her drug tests were negative, the mother failed to comply with other required services, despite the agency's diligent efforts. She also failed to consistently visit the child, attending only 37 of the 105 visits available to her with the child during the relevant time frame. Indeed, the mother does not assert that she tried to reschedule any of those visits. The mother's failure to maintain contact with the child through consistent and regular visitation alone constitutes permanent neglect (see Matterof Aisha C., 58 A.D.3d 471, 472, 871 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 706, 879 N.Y.S.2d 53, 906 N.E.2d 1087 [2009] ; Matter of Lamikia Shawn S., 276 A.D.2d 279, 279, 714 N.Y.S.2d 205 [1st Dept. 2000] ). To the extent that the mother had in the past attended dyadic therapy sessions, there is no evidence that she gained insight into her behavior or otherwise benefitted from therapy (see Matterof Julianna Victoria S. [Benny William W.], 89 A.D.3d 490, 491, 934 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 805, 2012 WL 400041 [2012] ).
The record supports the determination that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the child's best interests. The evidence presented at the dispositional hearing established that the child was doing well living with the foster mother, who has cared for the child since birth along with the subject child's two older siblings who had previously been freed for adoption, and that the foster mother wanted to adopt the child (see Matter of Sandra N. v. Administration for Children's Servs., 103 A.D.3d 591, 592, 962 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2395849 [2013] ; Matter of Nicole Monique H., 270 A.D.2d 205, 205, 704 N.Y.S.2d 597 [1st Dept. 2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 761, 714 N.Y.S.2d 711, 737 N.E.2d 953 [2000] ).
A suspended judgment is not warranted, since the mother failed to address the problems that caused the child to be removed from her care, and the problems remained unresolved at the time of disposition (see Matter of Malachi P. [Georgette P.], 142 A.D.3d 883, 884, 37 N.Y.S.3d 539 [1st Dept. 2016] ). The child is now five years old, and was placed days after birth into foster care; allowing the mother still more time to demonstrate that she can be a fit parent would serve no purpose other than to prolong the child's lack of permanence (see Matter of Autumn P. [Alisa R.], 129 A.D.3d 519, 520, 11 N.Y.S.3d 149 [1st Dept. 2015] ).