Opinion
2014-07-23
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent.
Zvi Ostrin, New York, N.Y., for appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the children.
In five related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of five orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Richmond County (Lim, J.), each dated August 13, 2012, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings (McElrath, J., at the fact-finding hearing), found that the mother had permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York and the Seamen's Society for Children and Families for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The finding of permanent neglect with respect to the mother was supported by evidence that the petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen the bond between her and the subject children, and that the mother failed to plan for the children's future ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d 901, 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640). These efforts included facilitating visitation, providing her with referrals, and holding numerous meetings to review her service plan ( see Matter of Elijah P. [C.I.P.], 76 A.D.3d 631, 632, 907 N.Y.S.2d 269;Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d at 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640;Matter of Sorin P., 58 A.D.3d 743, 744, 873 N.Y.S.2d 89;Matter of Antoine R., 301 A.D.2d 529, 753 N.Y.S.2d 735). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to complete the service plan, thereby failing to plan for the children's future ( see Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d at 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640;Matter of Michelle Rennee H., 48 A.D.3d 684, 684–685, 850 N.Y.S.2d 918).
Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to be freed for adoption ( see Matter of Elijah P. [C.I.P.], 76 A.D.3d at 632, 907 N.Y.S.2d 269;Matter of Jada Ta–Toneyia L., 66 A.D.3d at 902, 886 N.Y.S.2d 640;Matter of Sorin P., 58 A.D.3d at 744, 873 N.Y.S.2d 89;Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 A.D.3d 469, 470, 849 N.Y.S.2d 806;Matter of Ashey Lorraine R., 22 A.D.3d 671, 804 N.Y.S.2d 348). In light of evidence that the mother, inter alia, was not cooperating with the service plan, was not allowing caseworkers access to her home, and was not consenting to special education evaluations for two of the subject children, the Family Court's determination not to suspend judgment was a provident exercise of discretion ( see Matter of Ashey Lorraine R., 22 A.D.3d 671, 804 N.Y.S.2d 348;Matter of Albert E., 259 A.D.2d 315, 686 N.Y.S.2d 421). DILLON, J.P., HALL, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.