Opinion
2018–11155 2018–11156 2018–11157 2018–11158 Docket Nos. B–20217–16, B–20218–16, B–20219–16, B–20220–16
07-10-2019
In the MATTER OF DAVE R. (Anonymous). Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Sheetal R. (Anonymous), Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Shagun D.R. (Anonymous). Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Sheetal R. (Anonymous), Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Sia D.R. (Anonymous). Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Sheetal R. (Anonymous), Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Vanamsha D.R. (Anonymous). Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Sheetal R. (Anonymous), Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4)
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant. Leventhal, Mullaney, & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn, N.Y. (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Diane Pazar ), attorney for the children.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant.
Leventhal, Mullaney, & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn, N.Y. (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Diane Pazar ), attorney for the children.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother severely abused the subject children in the context of Family Court Act article 10 proceedings (see Matter of Dave R. , 174 A.D.3d 621, 101 N.Y.S.3d 901, 2019 WL 3046001 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2018–08374 ; decided herewith] ), established that the subject children were severely abused under Social Services Law § 384–b (see Social Services Law § 384–b[8][d] ; Matter of Riley C.P. [Tyrone P.] , 157 A.D.3d 957, 959, 69 N.Y.S.3d 699 ). Contrary to the mother's contention, the petitioner was properly relieved of the requirement to show that it made reasonable efforts at reunification (see Family Ct. Act § 1039–b[b][4] ).
We agree with the Family Court's determination that the subject children's best interests would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing them for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Riley C.P. [Tyrone P.] , 157 A.D.3d at 959, 69 N.Y.S.3d 699 ; Matter of Davina R.M.R.L. [Jennifer A.] , 123 A.D.3d 1126, 1128, 999 N.Y.S.2d 188 ).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.