Opinion
04-12-2016
In re Nadine NICKY McD., and Another, Dependent Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Vernice H., Respondent–Appellant, The Children's Village, Petitioner–Respondent.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Saul Zipkin of counsel), for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the children.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Saul Zipkin of counsel), for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the children.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Linda B. Tally, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding that respondent mother had abandoned the subject children, terminated her parental rights to the children and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence that the mother failed to communicate with the agency during the six months immediately preceding the filing of the petitions (Social Services Law § 384–b[4][b], [5][a] ).
The mother's minimal and insubstantial contacts with the agency during this period were insufficient to defeat this finding (see Matter of Kairi Jazlyn F., 50 A.D.3d 602, 602, 857 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1st Dept.2008] ). Although the subject children relocated to Delaware with their foster parents, the mother continued to have an obligation to maintain contact with the agency, and her failure to do so manifested an intent to forgo her parental obligations (see Matter of Alexa L. [Nilza L.], 79 A.D.3d 1290, 1291–1292, 912 N.Y.S.2d 738 [3d Dept.2010] ).
Petitioner was not required to show that it had made diligent efforts to encourage the mother's parental relationship with her children (Matter of Ruth R. [Diana P.], 115 A.D.3d 531, 532, 981 N.Y.S.2d 918 [1st Dept.2014] ). Rather, it was the mother's burden, which she failed to meet, to show that she had been unable to contact the agency or that the agency had prevented or discouraged her from doing so (see Matter of Regina A., 43 A.D.3d 725, 725, 843 N.Y.S.2d 207 [1st Dept.2007] ; see also Social Services Law § 384–b[5] [a] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, RICHTER, KAHN, JJ., concur.