Opinion
2011-11-10
In re JULIANNA VICTORIA S. and Another, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,Benny William W., Respondent–Appellant,Jewish Child Care Association of New York, Petitioner–Respondent.Azmara N.G., Petitioner–Appellant,Jessica Stephanie S., et al., Respondents.
Louise Belulovich, New York, for Azmara N.G., appellant. Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for Benny William W., appellant.
Louise Belulovich, New York, for Azmara N.G., appellant. Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for Benny William W., appellant. Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for Jewish Child Care Association of New York, respondent.Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Betsy Kramer of counsel), attorney for the children.TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about November 16, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent father permanently neglected the child Julianna, terminated his parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Orders, same court and Judge, entered on or about September 29, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, dismissed the great-aunt's petitions for custody of the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence support the finding that the father permanently neglected Julianna (Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [f]; § 384–b[3][g][i] ). The record shows that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, referring the father to anger management, domestic violence, and parenting skills classes, and by scheduling regular visits with the child ( see Matter of Lady Justice I., 50 A.D.3d 425, 426, 856 N.Y.S.2d 64 [2008] ). Despite these efforts, the father failed to consistently visit the child and engage in the required services during the statutorily relevant time period ( see id.). To the extent the father attended therapy sessions, there is no evidence that he gained insight or otherwise benefitted from them ( see Matter of Alexander B. [Myra R.], 70 A.D.3d 524, 525, 894 N.Y.S.2d 747 [2010], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 713, 2010 WL 2301585 [2010] ).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that termination of the father's parental rights is in the best interest of Julianna ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The father failed to preserve his claim that a suspended judgment is warranted ( see Matter of Omar Saheem Ali J. [Matthew J.], 80 A.D.3d 463, 914 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2011] ). In any event, that disposition is not appropriate, given that the father's situation has not improved and that Julianna is thriving in the foster home where she lives with her sister and where her special needs are being met ( id.).
The weight of the evidence supports the finding that it is in the children's best interests to dismiss the great-aunt's custody petitions ( see Matter of Tiffany Malika B., 215 A.D.2d 200, 201, 626 N.Y.S.2d 184 [1995], lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 707, 632 N.Y.S.2d 501, 656 N.E.2d 600 [1995] ). The record shows that the children are thriving in the foster home where they have lived for most of their lives. By contrast, the children have had little, if any, relationship with the great-aunt, whom they have seen infrequently.
We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.