Opinion
53 CAF 18–00178
02-08-2019
In the MATTER OF DOMINIC T.M. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Cassie M., Respondent–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
KATHLEEN KUGLER, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JESSICA J. BURGASSER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. MATTHEW E. BROOKS, LOCKPORT, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
KATHLEEN KUGLER, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JESSICA J. BURGASSER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MATTHEW E. BROOKS, LOCKPORT, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In these four appeals, respondent mother appeals from respective orders that, inter alia, revoked a suspended judgment and terminated her parental rights with respect to the four subject children. We affirm in each appeal.
Initially, we note that the mother's contention that "petitioner did not make significant efforts to reunite [her] with the child[ren] is not properly before us inasmuch as it was conclusively determined in the prior proceedings to terminate [the mother's] parental rights ... We note in any event that the [mother] admitted to the permanent neglect of the child[ren] and consented to the entry of the suspended judgment, and thus no appeal would lie therefrom because [the mother was] not aggrieved, based on [her] consent" ( Matter of Kh'Niayah D. [Niani J.], 155 A.D.3d 1649, 1650, 63 N.Y.S.3d 800 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 901, 2018 WL 1414704 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Contrary to the mother's further contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court's determination that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence at the revocation hearing that she violated several terms of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Jenna D. [Paula D.], 165 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 85 N.Y.S.3d 318 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 912, 2019 WL 150570 [2019] ; Matter of Amanda M. [George M.], 140 A.D.3d 1677, 1678, 32 N.Y.S.3d 533 [4th Dept. 2016] ). Those violations included the mother's failure during the period of the suspended judgment to maintain a verifiable means of financial support and to abide by the rules for visitation. Consequently, inasmuch as the mother has been unable "to overcome the specific problems that led to the removal of the child[ren] from her home," we conclude that the court properly determined that it is in the children's best interests to revoke the suspended judgment and terminate her parental rights ( Matter of Ramel H. [Tenese T.], 134 A.D.3d 1590, 1592, 23 N.Y.S.3d 782 [4th Dept. 2015] ).
Equally without merit is the mother's contention that the court failed to conduct a proper dispositional hearing to determine the best interests of the children. "It is well established that a hearing on a petition alleging that the terms of a suspended judgment have been violated is part of the dispositional phase of the permanent neglect proceeding, and that the disposition shall be based on the best interests of the child[ren]" ( Matter of Alisa E. [Wendy F.], 114 A.D.3d 1175, 1176, 980 N.Y.S.2d 193 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 901, 2014 WL 1704713 [2014] ; see Jenna D., 165 A.D.3d at 1619, 85 N.Y.S.3d 318 ). It is also well established that a parent's noncompliance with the terms of the suspended judgment constitutes strong evidence that termination of parental rights is in a child's best interests (see Jenna D., 165 A.D.3d at 1619, 85 N.Y.S.3d 318 ). Here, we conclude that the court properly conducted a hearing that addressed both the alleged violations of the suspended judgment and the children's best interests, and there was no need for an additional hearing (see id. ; Matter of Jeremiah J.W. [Tionna W.], 134 A.D.3d 848, 849, 22 N.Y.S.3d 215 [2d Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 27 N.Y.3d 1061, 35 N.Y.S.3d 294, 54 N.E.3d 1166 [2016] ).We have examined the mother's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the orders.