Opinion
September 26, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (George Jurow, J.).
The credible evidence contradicts respondent's assertion that the agency's efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship were only routine and perfunctory and not tailored to her situation ( compare, Matter of Anita PP., 65 A.D.2d 18). Those efforts failed because respondent refused to cooperate with the reasonable attempts that were made to assist and accommodate her, and was indifferent to the need to plan for the future of the child ( Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385; see, Matter of O. Children, 128 A.D.2d 460, 463-464). Nor was it improper for the court to proceed with the dispositional hearing immediately following fact-finding hearing, given the long period of time the case had already been pending and respondent's attorney's failure to offer any reason for a further adjournment. We have considered respondent's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.