Opinion
524544
06-07-2018
In the MATTER OF JASNIA Y. and Another, Alleged to be Permanently Neglected Children. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Alease Y., Appellant.
Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant. Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for respondent. Michelle E. Stone, Vestal, attorney for the children.
Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.
Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for respondent.
Michelle E. Stone, Vestal, attorney for the children.
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Devine, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Young, J.), entered January 26, 2017, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, granted petitioner's motion to revoke a suspended judgment, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the mother of, among others, the subject children (born in 2007 and 2008). The children have been in petitioner's care and custody since 2009. In 2013, petitioner commenced this permanent neglect proceeding against respondent seeking to terminate her parental rights. Respondent made admissions of permanent neglect and consented to an order of fact-finding and disposition with a six-month suspended judgment set to expire in November 2014. In October 2014, petitioner moved to revoke the suspended judgment. Following a fact-finding hearing and dispositional hearing, Family Court revoked the suspended judgment and terminated respondent's parental rights. Respondent now appeals.
The father of one child was initially named as a respondent as well, but he surrendered his parental rights. The other child's father is dead.
--------
A suspended judgment is intended to provide a parent who has permanently neglected his or her children with a brief period within which to become a fit parent with whom the children can be reunited in safety (see Matter of Jerhia EE. [Benjamin EE.], 157 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 68 N.Y.S.3d 219 [2018] ; Matter of Dominique VV. [Kelly VV.], 145 A.D.3d 1124, 1125, 43 N.Y.S.3d 550 [2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 901, 2017 WL 1094840 [2017] ). Family Court is free to "revoke a suspended judgment and terminate a parent's rights upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that a parent has not complied with the terms of the suspended judgment" (Matter of Dominique VV. [Kelly VV.], 145 A.D.3d at 1125, 43 N.Y.S.3d 550; see Matter of Jerhia EE. [Benjamin EE.], 157 A.D.3d at 1018, 68 N.Y.S.3d 219 ; Matter of Hazel OO. [Roseanne OO.], 133 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 21 N.Y.S.3d 404 [2015] ). To that end, "[a] parent's attempt to comply with the literal provisions of the suspended judgment is not enough; rather[,] the parent must demonstrate that progress has been made to overcome the specific problems which led to the removal of the child[ren]" ( Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 A.D.2d 622, 623, 659 N.Y.S.2d 940 [1997] ; accord Matter of Jonathan J., 47 A.D.3d 992, 993, 849 N.Y.S.2d 330 [2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 706, 857 N.Y.S.2d 39, 886 N.E.2d 804 [2008] ; see Matter of Maykayla FF. [Eugene FF.], 141 A.D.3d 898, 899, 34 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2016] ).
Petitioner provided testimony from its caseworker and a foster care caseworker, both of whom had worked with respondent and detailed how she failed to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment in significant respects. In particular, respondent lied about her continued ties to a romantic partner with whom she had a history of domestic violence, indicating that she had not benefitted from domestic violence counseling as required. Respondent also exhibited troubling behavior during supervised visitation that included making inappropriate comments about the children's foster family, ignoring the children to focus on telephone calls and raging against both caseworkers in the presence of the children. It accordingly appeared that respondent's anger management treatment had been for nought. Moreover, respondent failed in her obligation to cooperate with both caseworkers, refusing to execute requested releases and lying about issues pertinent to her ability to care for the children, such as her pregnancy and her living situation. Respondent disputed this testimony, but Family Court found her account to be "wholly incredible" and we "accord[ ] great deference" to that assessment (Matter of Dominique VV. [Kelly VV.], 145 A.D.3d at 1125, 43 N.Y.S.3d 550). A sound and substantial basis therefore exists in the record to support Family Court's revocation of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Jerhia EE. [Benjamin EE.], 157 A.D.3d at 1018–1019, 68 N.Y.S.3d 219 ; Matter of Jayden T. [Amy T.], 118 A.D.3d 1075, 1076–1077, 987 N.Y.S.2d 645 [2014] ; Matter of Frederick MM., 23 A.D.3d 951, 952–953, 805 N.Y.S.2d 160 [2005] ).
Turning to the disposition, "[w]hile a parent's failure to comply with the conditions of a suspended judgment does not automatically compel termination of parental rights, that noncompliance constitutes strong evidence that termination is, in fact, in the best interests of the child" (Matter of Jason H. [Lisa K.], 118 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 987 N.Y.S.2d 476 [2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Maykayla FF. [Eugene FF.], 141 A.D.3d at 900, 34 N.Y.S.3d 777). The children have been in foster care for several years and have established a strong bond with their preadoptive foster family. Respondent continued to visit with them but also continued to fail to benefit from domestic violence and anger management programs, a point demonstrated most forcefully when she stabbed a man in a domestic dispute in October 2015. In short, it remained unclear whether or when she would be able to properly care for the children. Family Court properly concluded from the foregoing, in addition to the in camera testimony of the children, that the best interests of the children lie in terminating respondent's parental rights and freeing them for adoption (see Matter of Sequoyah Z. [Melissa Z.], 127 A.D.3d 1518, 1521, 8 N.Y.S.3d 469 [2015], lv s denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 15 N.Y.S.3d 288, 36 N.E.3d 91 [2015]; Matter of Arianna BB. [Tracy DD.], 110 A.D.3d 1194, 1197–1198, 974 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2013], lvs denied 22 N.Y.3d 858 [2014] ).
As a final matter, the dispositional hearing included proof that petitioner had investigated respondent's sister and rejected her as a placement resource due to her history of domestic violence and anger management issues. Respondent now complains that Family Court gave short shrift to her sister's separate custody petition, but "[t]hat issue is not relevant to respondent's parental rights and, moreover, she lacks standing to raise that issue on behalf of her sister" ( Matter of Serenity KK. [Cynthia KK.], 80 A.D.3d 818, 818, 913 N.Y.S.2d 585 [2011] ; see Matter of Angelica VV., 53 A.D.3d 732, 733, 861 N.Y.S.2d 187 [2008] ; Matter of Andrew Z., 41 A.D.3d 912, 913, 837 N.Y.S.2d 422 [2007] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur.