Opinion
2011-12-15
In re EMILY ROSIO G., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,Milagros G., Respondent–Appellant,The Children's Aid Society, et al., Petitioners–Respondents.
Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2010, which, inter alia, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). The record shows that the agency acted diligently by issuing several referrals for the mother to attend programs mandated by her service plan, and the mother was repeatedly reminded of her need to complete the programs in order to regain custody. Despite these diligent efforts, the mother failed to complete her service plan in that she did not complete the individual counseling requirement, despite evidence of her emotional instability, which caused the developmentally delayed child to exhibit emotional distress. Furthermore, the mother continued to deny responsibility for the conditions necessitating the child's removal and failed to gain insight into how to best accomplish her parental duties and address the child's special needs ( see e.g. Matter of Irene C. [ Reina M.], 68 A.D.3d 416, 889 N.Y.S.2d 574 [2009] ).
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the child's best interests were served by terminating the mother's parental rights ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The child was thriving in the home environment provided by her foster mother, who tended to her special needs and wished to adopt her.
A suspended judgment was not warranted under the circumstances presented ( see generally Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122 [1992] ).