Opinion
July 12, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, Orange County (Ludmerer, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Under Social Services Law § 384-b (7), a child whose parent has failed to plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, and notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, may be deemed to be a permanently neglected child. A parent's obligation to plan for the future of the child requires a parent, at a minimum, to "`take [the] steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from [the] home'" (Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, quoting from Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117, 125). In other words, a parent is required to address and overcome the "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" (Matter of Tammy B., 185 A.D.2d 881, 882).
In the instant case, the record supports the Family Court's determination that Jeremy was permanently neglected within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b. The appellant's testimony at the fact-finding hearing established that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the appellant had recurring bouts of alcoholism despite an earlier court order, entered on her consent, that she remain alcohol-free. The appellant admitted that on two occasions she required in-patient alcoholic rehabilitation, the last such occasion requiring a stay of over four months in 1992. Thus, her conceded failure to overcome her alcohol abuse problem, which had initially led to the removal of Jeremy from her custody two years previously, was sufficient to support a finding that she had failed to plan for the child's future (see, Matter of Regina M.C., 139 A.D.2d 929; see also, Matter of Victoria B., 185 A.D.2d 811; Matter of William Michael A., 70 A.D.2d 1007).
Moreover, although the appellant maintained regular visitation with Jeremy and had made progress in other areas, her failure to overcome her alcohol abuse and to plan for Jeremy's future supported the disposition terminating her parental rights (see, Matter of Victoria B., supra; Matter of Lisa L., 117 A.D.2d 931; Matter of William Michael A., supra), especially in light of the strong bonding between Jeremy and his foster family, with whom he had lived for almost the entirety of his young life (see, Matter of Dawntal Danielle C., 170 A.D.2d 375), and the evidence that the foster parents were addressing Jeremy's special problems (see, Matter of C. Children, 170 A.D.2d 254). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.