Opinion
16466 16465A 16465.
12-22-2015
In re ARIANNA–SAMANTHA LADY MELISSA S., and Another, Dependent Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Carissa S., Respondent–Appellant, Community Counseling & Mediation, Petitioner–Respondent.
Bruce A. Young, New York, for appellant. Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the children.
Bruce A. Young, New York, for appellant.
Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the children.
Opinion
Orders of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about January 6, 2015, which, to the extent appealable, found that respondent mother permanently neglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Judge, entered on or about February 9, 2014, which denied the mother's motion to vacate the orders of disposition terminating her parental rights upon inquest following her default in appearance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
As to the fact-finding portions of the orders, the agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it made the requisite diligent efforts (see Social Services Law § 384–b7[a], and the mother failed to show that she had complied with required mental health treatment and services (see Matter of Juliana Victoria S. [Benny William W.], 89 A.D.3d 490, 934 N.Y.S.2d 91 1st Dept.2005, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 805, 2012 WL 400041 2012 ), visited the children consistently (see Matter of Calvario Chase Norall W. [Denise W.], 85 A.D.3d 582, 926 N.Y.S.2d 437 1st Dept.2011 ), obtained safe and secure housing, or otherwise addressed the issues which led to the children's placement in the first instance (see Matter of Jaileen X.M. [Annette M.], 111 A.D.3d 502, 503, 974 N.Y.S.2d 440 1st Dept.2013, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 859, 2014 WL 113785 2014 ).
No appeal lies from the dispositional portions of the orders of fact-finding and disposition, since the mother defaulted at the dispositional hearing (see Matter of Jaquan Tieran B. [Latoya B.], 105 A.D.3d 498, 499, 963 N.Y.S.2d 190 1st Dept.2013 ).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the mother's motion to vacate the dispositional orders entered on her default, since she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the hearing and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a]1; see e.g., Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.], 111 A.D.3d 418, 419, 974 N.Y.S.2d 71 1st Dept.2013 ). In particular, her contention that she experienced unexpected subway delays and long security lines at the courthouse, and was unable to contact her attorney during the trip, did not constitute a reasonable excuse, especially in light of her repeated tardiness and absences during the proceedings, as well as a lack of evidence in support of her purported excuse (see Matter of Nasir Levon L. [Ashley Bernadette B.], 110 A.D.3d 565, 974 N.Y.S.2d 50 1st Dept.2013, lv. dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1099, 982 N.Y.S.2d 59, 5 N.E.3d 31 2014; Matter of Male H., 179 A.D.2d 384, 385, 577 N.Y.S.2d 409 1st Dept.1992, lv. dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 1026, 584 N.Y.S.2d 438, 594 N.E.2d 932 1992; Matter of Laura Mariela R., 302 A.D.2d 300, 754 N.Y.S.2d 546 1st Dept.2003; Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.], 73 A.D.3d 428, 901 N.Y.S.2d 178 1st Dept.2010, lv. dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 766, 906 N.Y.S.2d 810, 933 N.E.2d 209 2010 ). In any event, the mother failed to provide evidence in support of a meritorious defense other than her conclusory statement that, were the hearing to be reopened, she would testify that she was ready, willing and able to care for the children (see Matter of Lenea'jah F. [Makeba T.S.], 105 A.D.3d 514, 963 N.Y.S.2d 105 1st Dept.2013 ). Indeed, the record evidence is to the contrary.
Moreover, the court properly credited the caseworker's testimony which demonstrated that it was in the children's best interests for the mother's rights to be terminated to enable the children to be adopted by their long-term foster mother, who has provided a loving and stable home, for both children, for nearly their entire lives, and with whom they are thriving (Matter of Ciara Lee C. [Lourdes R.], 67 A.D.3d 437, 888 N.Y.S.2d 41 1st Dept.2009, lv. dismissed 14 N.Y.3d 756, 898 N.Y.S.2d 84, 925 N.E.2d 87 2010 ).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.