Opinion
737 CAF 16–00308
06-15-2018
In the MATTER OF MICHAEL S. and Gabriel S. Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Kathryne T., Respondent–Appellant, and Timothy S., Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.)
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. REBECCA L. DAVISON–MARCH, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. MARY S. HAJDU, LAKEWOOD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
REBECCA L. DAVISON–MARCH, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
MARY S. HAJDU, LAKEWOOD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent mother appeals from an order determining that the subject children are permanently neglected. With the consent of the parties, Family Court suspended judgment. In appeal No. 2, the mother appeals from an order revoking the suspended judgment and terminating her parental rights with respect to the children. We affirm in each appeal.
Contrary to the mother's contention in appeal No. 1, "[p]etitioner met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the mother and [the children] by providing ‘services and other assistance aimed at ameliorating or resolving the problems preventing [the children's] return to [the mother's] care’ ..., and that the mother failed substantially and continuously to plan for the future of the child[ren] although physically and financially able to do so ... Although the mother participated in [some of] the services offered by petitioner, she did not successfully address or gain insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child[ren] and continued to prevent the child[ren's] safe return" ( Matter of Giovanni K. , 62 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 846 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 715, 2009 WL 1851454 [2009] ; see Social Services Law § 384–b [7 ][a]; Matter of Michael S. [Timothy S.]. , 159 A.D.3d 1378, 1379, 72 N.Y.S.3d 294 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Kendalle K. [Corin K.]. , 144 A.D.3d 1670, 1671–1672, 41 N.Y.S.3d 832 [4th Dept. 2016] ).
With respect to appeal No. 2, "it is well settled that, [i]f [petitioner] establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been noncompliance with any of the terms of the suspended judgment, the court may revoke the suspended judgment and terminate parental rights" ( Matter of Savanna G. [Danyelle M.] , 118 A.D.3d 1482, 1483, 988 N.Y.S.2d 812 [4th Dept. 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Contrary to the mother's contention, the court properly determined that she failed to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment and that it is in the children's best interests to terminate her parental rights (see Michael S. , 159 A.D.3d at 1379–1380, 72 N.Y.S.3d 294 ).