Opinion
2012-12-28
In the Matter of JOANNA P., Samantha M., Julian W., and Adair M. Erie County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Patricia M., Respondent–Appellant.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Respondent–Appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Respondent–Appellant. Joseph T. Jarzembek, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.
Pamela Thibodeau, Attorney for the Children, Williamsville, for Joanna P. and Samantha M.
Mary Anne Connell, Attorney for the Children, Buffalo, for Julian W. and Adair M.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b on the ground of permanent neglect. We dismiss as moot the appeal from the order insofar as it concerned the mother's oldest child inasmuch as she has attained the age of 18 ( see Matter of Anthony M., 56 A.D.3d 1124, 1124, 867 N.Y.S.2d 590,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 702, 876 N.Y.S.2d 349, 904 N.E.2d 504).
We conclude that 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 younger children, and the mother failed to establish that she “had ‘a meaningful plan for the child[ren's] future, including that [she has] addressed the problems that caused the removal’ of the child[ren]” ( 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). “Petitioner was not required to ensure that the mother succeeded in overcoming her obstacles but, rather, the mother was required to assume some responsibility in dealing with those challenges” ( Matter of Gerald G. [ Orena G.], 91 A.D.3d 1320, 1320, 938 N.Y.S.2d 701,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 801, 2012 WL 1502759). “ ‘[A]lthough [the mother] participated in [some of] the services offered by petitioner, [s]he failed to address successfully the problems that led to the removal of the child[ren] and continued to prevent [their] safe return’ ” ( Matter of Brittany K., 59 A.D.3d 952, 953, 872 N.Y.S.2d 817,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 709, 2009 WL 1259033).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the record supports Family Court's determination that a suspended judgment would not serve the best interests of the younger children ( see Matter of Tiara B. [ Torrence B.], 70 A.D.3d 1307, 1307–1308, 895 N.Y.S.2d 622,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 709, 2010 WL 1754796;see generally Matter of Mercedes L., 12 A.D.3d 1184, 1185, 785 N.Y.S.2d 267;Matter of Saboor C., 303 A.D.2d 1022, 1023, 757 N.Y.S.2d 192). “ ‘The progress made by [the mother] in the months preceding the dispositional determination was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren's] unsettled familial status' ” ( Matter of Roystar T. [ Samarian B.], 72 A.D.3d 1569, 1569, 899 N.Y.S.2d 508,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 707, 2010 WL 3546278).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it concerned respondent's oldest child is unanimously dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.