Opinion
14009 Dkt. No. B-40760-62/14 Case No. 2020-02051
06-08-2021
In the MATTER OF PATRICIA A. and others, a Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Norman A. et al., Respondents–Appellants, v. Cardinal McCloskey Community Services, et al., Petitioners–Respondents, JMAC for Families, Movement for Family Power and the Reproductive Justice Clinic of New York University School of Law, Amici Curiae.
Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Adam L. Deming of counsel), for appellants. Geoffrey P. Berman, PC, Larchmont (Geoffrey P. Berman of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the children. Sarah Wheeler and Sarah Burns, New York, for The Reproductive Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law, amicus curiae and Erin Cloud and Lisa Sangoi, Calabasas, CA, for Movement for Family Power, amicus curiae.
Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Adam L. Deming of counsel), for appellants.
Geoffrey P. Berman, PC, Larchmont (Geoffrey P. Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Marcia Egger of counsel), attorney for the children.
Sarah Wheeler and Sarah Burns, New York, for The Reproductive Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law, amicus curiae and Erin Cloud and Lisa Sangoi, Calabasas, CA, for Movement for Family Power, amicus curiae.
Renwick, J.P., Kern, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Emily Oshansky, J), entered on or about March 11, 2020, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondents’ parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Even though respondents regularly visited the children and successfully completed their service plan, they failed to credibly acknowledge the problems that led to the foster care placement of the children in the first place, and Family Court was in the best position to make this evaluation (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 842, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775 [1986] ). Moreover, the attorney for the children urges that the children have been permanently neglected and that parental rights should be terminated ( id. ).
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that termination of respondents’ parental rights was in the best interests of the children, who have been living in the same foster home since 2014, wish to be adopted, and whose foster mother wishes to adopt them (see e.g. Matter of Chelsea C. [Bethania C.], 84 A.D.3d 504, 504, 923 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 705, 2011 WL 2566521 [2011] ).
We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions, as well as those raised by the amici curiae, and find them unavailing.