From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Davina

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 31, 2014
123 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-00163 (Docket No. B-17724-12)

12-31-2014

In the Matter of DAVINA R.M.R.L. (Anonymous). Forestdale, Inc., et al., respondents; Jennifer A. (Anonymous), appellant.

 John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York, N.Y. (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent Forestdale, Inc. Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Jess Rao of counsel), attorney for the child.


John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant.

Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York, N.Y. (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent Forestdale, Inc.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Jess Rao of counsel), attorney for the child.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Opinion Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret P. McGowan, J.), dated November 12, 2013. The order, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to Forestdale, Inc., 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, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). Contrary to the mother's contention, the petitioner Forestdale, Inc., established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to assist the mother in maintaining contact with the child and planning for the child's future (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 142, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 ). These efforts included scheduling and facilitating visitation, developing a service plan, making referrals for mental health evaluation and treatment programs, making referrals for parenting skills and anger management classes, advising the mother as to how to obtain housing and a source of income, encouraging the mother to comply with the service plan, and warning the mother of the consequences of noncompliance (see Social Services Law § 384–b [7] [f] ; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d at 142–143, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 ; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 A.D.3d 1168, 927 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 A.D.3d 832, 910 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; Matter of Arthur C., 66 A.D.3d 1009, 887 N.Y.S.2d 679 ). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future by failing to complete the necessary programs and by failing to take steps to secure appropriate housing or a source of income (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][c] ; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 A.D.3d 1168, 927 N.Y.S.2d 121 ). To the extent that the mother did attend any parenting or anger management classes, she never gained insight as to why she needed to attend those classes (see Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 A.D.3d at 833, 910 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose Ricardo G.], 78 A.D.3d 831, 831–832, 910 N.Y.S.2d 376 ). Accordingly, the Family Court correctly found that the child was permanently neglected (see Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 A.D.3d 1168, 927 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 A.D.3d 832, 910 N.Y.S.2d 377 ).Moreover, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by her foster parent, with whom she had been residing since birth (see Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose Ricardo G.], 78 A.D.3d at 831–832, 910 N.Y.S.2d 376 ). Contrary to the mother's contention, the entry of a suspended judgment was not appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see Matter of Anthony R. [Juliann A.], 90 A.D.3d 1055, 937 N.Y.S.2d 72 ; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653 ).


Summaries of

In re Davina

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 31, 2014
123 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

In re Davina

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVINA R.M.R.L. (Anonymous). Forestdale, Inc., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 31, 2014

Citations

123 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
999 N.Y.S.2d 188
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 9132

Citing Cases

Forestdale, Inc. v. Jennifer A. (In re Jaaliyah)

t efforts to strengthen and encourage the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ).The…

Suffolk Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Franklin S. (In re Gabriel B. S.-P.)

In proceedings to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the agency must first establish, by…