Opinion
2011-12-13
In the Matter of TSULYN A. (Anonymous).Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent;Deborah A. (Anonymous), appellant.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Justin R. Adin of counsel), for respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., for appellant. Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Justin R. Adin of counsel), for respondent.
Anne R. Mueller, West Harrison, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Weschester County (Lammers, Ct.Atty.Ref.), entered May 26, 2011, which, after a permanency hearing, extended the placement of the subject child in foster care in the custody of the nonparty maternal grandmother until October 24, 2011, and changed the permanency goal from reunification with the mother to placement for adoption.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as extended the placement of the subject child in foster care in the custody of the nonparty maternal grandmother until October 24, 2011, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of extension of the placement has expired; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that changing the permanency goal from reunification with the mother to placement for adoption was in the subject child's best interests ( see Matter of Michael D. [ Antionette R.], 71 A.D.3d 1017, 897 N.Y.S.2d 204; Matter of Darlene L., 38 A.D.3d 552, 831 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1003, 817 N.Y.S.2d 308; Matter of Amanda C., 309 A.D.2d 744, 765 N.Y.S.2d 382). Given the child's special needs, the fact that she has been in a foster home with her maternal grandmother for more than one half of her life, and that the mother failed to successfully address her anger management and mental health issues, the Family Court's determination to change the permanency goal from reunification with the mother to placement for adoption had a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Michael D. [ Antionette R.], 71 A.D.3d 1017, 897 N.Y.S.2d 204; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 A.D.3d 1003, 817 N.Y.S.2d 308; Matter of Amanda C., 309 A.D.2d 744, 765 N.Y.S.2d 382).