Opinion
2012-12-21
In the Matter of SERENITY G. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Orena G., Respondent–Appellant.
Alan Birnholz, East Amherst, for Respondent–Appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Alan Birnholz, East Amherst, for Respondent–Appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.
David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Child, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel), for Serenity G.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect. We affirm. Initially, we note that the mother failed to preserve for our review her contention that Family Court erred in considering postpetition conduct prior to the dispositional hearing ( see Matter of Darren HH. [Amber HH.], 68 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 889 N.Y.S.2d 770,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 703, 2010 WL 607128;Matter of “Baby Girl” Q., 14 A.D.3d 392, 393, 787 N.Y.S.2d 328lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 704, 801 N.Y.S.2d 1, 834 N.E.2d 780).
Also contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that she permanently neglected the subject child ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[3][g][i]; [4][d] ). It is undisputed that the child was removed from the mother's care two days after her birth and was never returned to the mother's care. Petitioner met its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it made the requisite diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the mother's relationship with the child ( see§ 384–b[7][a]; see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;Matter of Rachael N. [Christine N.], 70 A.D.3d 1374, 1374, 894 N.Y.S.2d 265,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 708, 2010 WL 3583146). The mother thereafter failed to establish that she had a meaningful plan for the child's future, including that she has addressed the problems that caused the removal of the child ( see Matter of Justain R., 93 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 940 N.Y.S.2d 710; Rachael N., 70 A.D.3d at 1374, 894 N.Y.S.2d 265). Although the mother attended some of the parenting classes to which she was referred, petitioner presented evidence that she was “inconsistently applying the knowledge and benefits she obtained from the services provided[ and was] arguing with various service providers and professionals,” and petitioner thus established that the mother failed to articulate a realistic plan for the child's return to her care (Matter of Douglas H., 1 A.D.3d 824, 825, 767 N.Y.S.2d 173,lv. denied2 N.Y.3d 701, 778 N.Y.S.2d 459, 810 N.E.2d 912).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.