Opinion
August 28, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Lubow, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court correctly found that the natural mother failed to plan for her child's future (see, Social Services Law § 384-b). In planning for a child's future, "[a]t a minimum, parents must `take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home'" (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, quoting Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 125). This parental obligation necessarily includes addressing and overcoming specific personal and familial problems which initially endangered or proved harmful to the child, and which may in the future endanger or possibly harm the child (see, Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d 881; Matter of Sonia H., 177 A.D.2d 575).
Here, the child was placed in foster care because the mother's paramour had physically abused him. The mother, however, continued to associate herself with the same man, attended only a limited amount of the court-ordered counseling sessions, and did not maintain a regular pattern of visitation. Thus, the Family Court properly found that the mother failed to adequately plan for her child's future (see, Matter of Kandu Anthony Y., 166 A.D.2d 653).
We agree that it is in the best interests of the child that the natural mother's parental rights be terminated in order to permit the child to be adopted and provided with a stable family life (see, Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.