Opinion
11432 Dkt. B-4384/18
04-30-2020
IN RE ASAR S.W., a Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Marie G., Respondent–Appellant, v. Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York, etc., Petitioner-Respondent, Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.
Bruce A. Young, New York, 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.
Bruce A. Young, New York, 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.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, JJ.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2019, which, inter alia, 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 Administration for Children's Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's determination that the mother permanently neglected the child is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In devising a suitable service plan, making appropriate referrals, providing frequent casework counseling and scheduling regular visitation, the agency exercised the requisite diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Matter of Malcolm M.L. [Ruby C.], 177 A.D.3d 442, 112 N.Y.S.3d 720 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The mother's service plan was specifically tailored to her mental health needs, and while the mother completed a parenting skills program, she did not comply with mental health services, an essential part of her service plan, and she failed to visit her son consistently. She attended only about half of the visits she was offered, and for the three months preceding the filing of the petition she did not visit or make contact with him at all.
A preponderance of the evidence also supports the court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the child, who has been in a stable foster home for his entire life, where all of his needs were being met, and the foster mother wished to adopt him (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, 969 N.Y.S.2d 443, 991 N.E.2d 217 [2013] ). As the Family Court found, the mother has not put forth a realistic, feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the child, and therefore a suspended judgment was not appropriate (see Matter of Lorenda M. [Lorenzo McG.], 2 A.D.3d 370, 371, 770 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
We have considered the mother's remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.