Opinion
2013-06-19
In the Matter of ANGEL H. (Anonymous), also known as Angel L.H. (Anonymous), also known as Angel G. (Anonymous). Mercy First, petitioner-respondent; Omayra G. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Carmen G. (Anonymous), petitioner, v. Omayra G. (Anonymous), appellant, Administration for Children's Services, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2).
Virginia A. Conroy, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Virginia A. Conroy, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for nonparties Ramonita C. (Anonymous) and Pedro C. (Anonymous).
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, and a related custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated January 4, 2012, which, among other things, upon a decision of the same court dated November 30, 2011, made after a hearing, found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to Mercy First and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child. Contrary to the mother's contention, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142–143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824). These efforts included repeated referrals of the mother to drug treatment programs and individual counseling, the monitoring of her progress in these programs, and repeated warnings to the mother that if she failed to attend and complete a drug treatment program, she could permanently lose custody of the subject child ( see Matter of Temple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 A.D.3d 681, 681–682, 947 N.Y.S.2d 611). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future ( see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775;Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 393, 482 N.Y.S.2d 461, 472 N.E.2d 311;Matter of Orlando F., 40 N.Y.2d 103, 110, 386 N.Y.S.2d 64, 351 N.E.2d 711;Matter of Temple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 A.D.3d at 681–682, 947 N.Y.S.2d 611;Matter of Darrnell G. [Robin Denise H.], 88 A.D.3d 789, 790, 930 N.Y.S.2d 908). Accordingly, the petitioner met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother permanently neglected the subject child ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7] [a]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 136, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824).
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the subject child to terminate the mother's parental rights ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 147, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824;Matter of Temple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 A.D.3d at 682, 947 N.Y.S.2d 611;Matter of Malen Sansa V. [Nancy J.], 70 A.D.3d 707, 708, 894 N.Y.S.2d 98).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.