Opinion
17377 Dkt. No. B–07680–19 Case No.2022–00721
02-21-2023
In the MATTER OF MARIA G.T., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Maria T., Respondent–Appellant, v. Sheltering Arms Children & Family Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for appellant. Sheltering Arms Children & Family Services, Bronx (Emily Lovejoy of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for appellant.
Sheltering Arms Children & Family Services, Bronx (Emily Lovejoy of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the child.
Kapnick, J.P., Oing, Kennedy, Pitt–Burke, JJ.
Order of fact-Finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County ( Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about December 10, 2021, which, upon a finding of 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 Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The record demonstrates that the agency expended diligent efforts by discussing with the mother the necessity of completing her service plan, scheduling visitation, and referring her for mental health services and dyadic therapy to strengthen her relationship with the child (see Matter of Serenity K.T. [Shanisha S.], 190 A.D.3d 572, 573, 136 N.Y.S.3d 706 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Asar S.W. [Marie G.], 182 A.D.3d 519, 520, 120 N.Y.S.3d 775 [1st Dept. 2020] ). The mother failed to complete any portion of her service plan, demonstrating a lack of insight into the conditions that led to the child's removal (see Matter of Amanda M.T. [Charles Franklin T.], 189 A.D.3d 470, 471, 135 N.Y.S.3d 111 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 907, 2021 WL 1134461 [2021] ; Matter of L. Children [Wileen J.], 168 A.D.3d 455, 456, 92 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2019] ), as well as the termination of parental rights as to two older children ( Matter of Frederick T. [Maria T.], 191 A.D.3d 489, 138 N.Y.S.3d 308 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 926, 146 N.Y.S.3d 867, 169 N.E.3d 1231 [2021] ). Moreover, she failed to visit her daughter consistently and attended less than half of the scheduled visits (see Matter of Aisha C., 58 A.D.3d 471, 472, 871 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 706, 879 N.Y.S.2d 53, 906 N.E.2d 1087 [2009] ).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child, who had been in the same foster home for her entire life, where she was closely bonded with the foster family, and the foster parents wished to adopt her (see Matter of Ashley R. [Latarsha R.], 103 A.D.3d 573, 574, 962 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 857, 2013 WL 2436351 [2013] ). A suspended judgment was not appropriate here given the length of time the child had been in foster care, the strong ties she had formed with her foster family, and because there was no evidence that the mother had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child (see Matter of Asar S.W., 182 A.D.3d at 520, 120 N.Y.S.3d 775 ).