Opinion
06-12-2015
In the Matter of ZACHARY H. Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; Jessica H., Respondent–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Gordon J. Cuffy, County Attorney, Syracuse (Polly E. Johnson of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent. Stephanie N. Davis, Attorney for the Child, Oswego.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant.
Gordon J. Cuffy, County Attorney, Syracuse (Polly E. Johnson of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Stephanie N. Davis, Attorney for the Child, Oswego.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect and freed the child for adoption. Contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner established “by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between [the mother] and the child” (Matter of Ja–Nathan F., 309 A.D.2d 1152, 1152, 764 N.Y.S.2d 894 ; see Social Services Law § 384–b[3][g][i] ; [7][a] ), and that, despite her participation in some of the services afforded her, the mother “did not successfully address or gain insight into the problem that led to the removal of the child and continued to prevent the child's safe return” (Matter of Giovanni K., 62 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 846, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 715, 2009 WL 1851454 ; see Matter of Cayden L.R. [Melissa R.], 108 A.D.3d 1154, 1155–1156, 969 N.Y.S.2d 674, lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 866, 2014 WL 1362341 ; Ja–Nathan F., 309 A.D.2d at 1152, 764 N.Y.S.2d 894 ). Contrary to the further contention of the mother, Family Court properly determined that she failed to plan for the future of the child, although able to do so (see Matter of Whytnei B. [Jeffrey B.], 77 A.D.3d 1340, 1341, 907 N.Y.S.2d 760 ). The mother did not comply with her service plan, inasmuch as she did not regularly attend visitation, find stable housing, or consistently engage in mental health treatment.Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter a suspended judgment. The record supports the court's determination that a suspended judgment, i.e., “a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” (Matter of Michael
B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 ), was not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Alexander M. [Michael A.M.], 106 A.D.3d 1524, 1525, 964 N.Y.S.2d 445 ). The mother's “negligible progress” in addressing the issues that initially necessitated the child's removal from her custody “ ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child's unsettled familial status' ” (Alexander M., 106 A.D.3d at 1525, 964 N.Y.S.2d 445 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.