Opinion
9072
04-23-2019
IN RE ZARIAH M.E. also known as Zariah E., a Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Alexys T. also known as Alexus T., Respondent–Appellant, Administration for Children Services, Respondent, v. St. Dominic's Family Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.
Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Webber, Singh, JJ.
Resettled order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about April 16, 2018, which, upon a finding a permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, respondent mother failed to regularly and consistently visit the child and plan for her return (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). The agency's efforts included, but were not limited to referring the mother for parenting skills and mental health services, attempting to assist her in obtaining housing, and attempting to help her schedule visitation with her daughter ( Matter of Cerenithy B. [Ecksthine B.], 149 A.D.3d 637, 638, 51 N.Y.S.3d 89 [1st Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1106, 61 N.Y.S.3d 195, 83 N.E.3d 203 [2017] ).
Despite these efforts, the mother went months at a time without visiting, which in itself constituted a ground for a finding of permanent neglect ( Matter of Angelica D. [Deborah D.], 157 A.D.3d 587, 588, 69 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2018] ). She also failed to plan for the return of the child, in particular by not addressing her own mental health issues, which was a key component of any reunification plan (see Matter of Frank Enrique S. [Karina Elizabeth F.], 168 A.D.3d 539, 540, 92 N.Y.S.3d 241 [1st Dept. 2019] ).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.