Opinion
06-09-2016
In re HOPE LINDA P., and Others, Dependent Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Cardinal McCloskey Community Services, Petitioner–Appellant, Cassandra P., Respondent–Respondent.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant. Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Opinion Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the agency's petitions to terminate the parental rights of respondent mother on the ground of permanent neglect, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petitions reinstated, findings of permanent neglect made thereupon, and the matters remanded for dispositional hearings.
The record establishes that the agency fulfilled its statutory obligation to exert diligent efforts in the face of a lack of cooperation from respondent mother (see Matter of Byron Christopher Malik J., 309 A.D.2d 669, 669, 765 N.Y.S.2d 874 [1st Dept.2003] ) and supports the findings of permanent neglect with clear and convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ).
Respondent mother did not express an interest in planning for the children's return independent of the children's maternal grandfather until five months prior to the filing of the petitions (see Matter of Ericka Stacey B., 27 A.D.3d 245, 246, 810 N.Y.S.2d 466 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 715, 823 N.Y.S.2d 355, 856 N.E.2d 919 [2006] ). When the mother did express a willingness to plan for the children's return, the agency diligently attempted to assist her in efforts to obtain suitable housing; however, she repeatedly failed to cooperate, including, among other things, refusing offers of services from the agency and refusing to consent to the disclosure of records from mental health providers (see Matter of Kristian–Isaiah William M. [Jessenica Terri–Monica B.], 109 A.D.3d 759, 760, 972 N.Y.S.2d 227 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 856, 2013 WL 6169288 [2013] ). The agency remained in regular contact with the mother and her therapist, and sought to have him assist the mother in applying for appropriate housing, since the mother had refused the agency's assistance (see Matter of Natalie Maria D. [Miguel D.], 73 A.D.3d 536, 536–537, 901 N.Y.S.2d 225 [1st Dept.2010] ; Matter of Makever Carl B., 298 A.D.2d 303, 303, 748 N.Y.S.2d 493 [1st Dept.2002] ). It also arranged regular visitation between the mother and the subject children, and kept the mother apprised of the children's health issues and special needs, as well as their educational progress.