Opinion
17444 Dkt. No. B3285/21 Case No. 2022–02538
03-02-2023
In the MATTER OF B.W., and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., N.W., Respondent–Appellant, v. Rising Ground, Petitioner–Respondent.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Rosin Steinhagen Mendel PLLC, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent. Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, attorney for the children.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel PLLC, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, attorney for the children.
Moulton, J.P., Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Cynthia Lopez, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2022, which, to the extent appealable and as limited by the briefs, brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court (Michael R. Milsap, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2021, which found, after a hearing, that respondent mother permanently neglected and abandoned the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that the mother had abandoned the children by failing to visit or communicate with the children or the agency for the six months immediately prior to the filing of the petition, although she was able to do so and not prevented or discouraged from doing so by the agency (see Social Services Law § 384–b [3][g][i] ; [4][b]; [5][a]). The mother's limited contacts with the children during the relevant period were too sporadic and insubstantial to defeat the finding of abandonment (see Matter of Messiah C.T. [Eusebio C.T.], 180 A.D.3d 544, 116 N.Y.S.3d 278 [1st Dept. 2020] ). The credible evidence belied the mother's contentions that the foster mother told her that there was an order of protection prohibiting her from contact with the children and that she did not maintain contact with the agency because there was no case planner assigned to her case (see Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776, 381 N.Y.S.2d 865, 345 N.E.2d 337 [1975] ; Matter of Salma M., 294 A.D.2d 198, 744 N.Y.S.2d 3 [1st Dept. 2002] ). In any event, at all relevant times, the mother was aware that the children were placed with the agency, and residing in the home of their maternal grandmother, and her failure to maintain contact with the agency constituted a manifestation of intent to forego parental rights (see Matter of Nadine Nicky McD. [Vernice H.], 138 A.D.3d 495, 28 N.Y.S.3d 301 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
The finding of permanent neglect is also supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, scheduling visitation and providing the mother with referrals for appropriate services, and that despite those efforts, the mother failed to plan for the children's future during the relevant time period (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). Among other things, the mother failed to complete a drug treatment program or comply with any portion of her service plan (see Matter of Bryce Raymond R. [Ann M.], 162 A.D.3d 522, 523, 80 N.Y.S.3d 54 [1st Dept. 2018] ), and seemed to show little insight into why she was referred for services. The mother failed to attend scheduled visits and was inattentive during virtual visits (see Matter of Calvario Chase Norall W. [Denise W.], 85 A.D.3d 582, 926 N.Y.S.2d 437 [1st Dept. 2011] ). The mother was hostile toward agency staff, telling them to stop contacting her, and resisted the agency's efforts to engage her in planning for the children. The mother's various excuses for her failure to comply with services and visitation were speculative and otherwise unsupported by the credible evidence.
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.