Opinion
February 14, 1991
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.).
The agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it embarked on a diligent course to reunite the respondent and her sons. Visitation was promoted, and the agency made affirmative, repeated and meaningful efforts to assist the respondent in overcoming her lack of parenting skills, and in understanding of her children's physical and developmental problems. (Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368.) While the record does not show that the agency helped the respondent find suitable housing, the agency did not act unreasonably by focusing on the more pressing need to equip the respondent with the skills needed to care for her children. (Cf., Matter of Ronald YY., 101 A.D.2d 895, 897.)
The agency also established that the respondent did not "plan for" (Social Services Law § 348-b [7] [a]) the children's future. Despite the agency's efforts, the respondent did not make a meaningful attempt to learn how to address the boys' special needs. (Cf., Matter of Orlando F., 40 N.Y.2d 103, 110.) Rather respondent resisted the agency's efforts, claiming that she was not ready for the children's return.
The respondent is a person of limited resources, but her claim that the agency made unreasonable demands on her time is not borne out by the record. (Cf., Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 394-395.) Rather the agency reasonably focused on Delma B.'s inability to understand or cope with the children's condition, the very circumstance that led to their placement. (Cf., Matter of Wise Servs. [Febra], 135 A.D.2d 385.) Instead of seizing the opportunity to equip herself with the requisite skills, the respondent took advantage of the period of placement to avoid the need to address her deficit in parenting skills. Her proffered excuse, depression, did not relieve her of her obligation to plan. (Matter of Hime Y., 52 N.Y.2d 242, 251.) Moreover the best interest of the children is appropriately taken into account in considering whether the agency fulfilled its obligation to Delma B. (Matter of Jamie M., supra, at 394.)
Freeing the boys for adoption also serves their best interests. (Cf., Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147-148.) Adoption will ensure that they will receive the extra attention and special care that their hydrocephalus demands. The respondent's alternative request for a suspended judgment is meritless. Although she expressed her love for her children, her hope that her boyfriend would help her provide the kind of supervision that the boys' condition demands is on this record unrealistic.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.