Opinion
17550 Dkt. Nos. B-01988/20, B-01989/20 Case No. 2022–00102
03-21-2023
In the MATTER OF ARYANNA W., and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Precious W., Respondent–Appellant, v. Good Shepherd Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Mara Fleder of counsel), for appellant. Geoffrey P. Berman P.C., Larchmont (Geoffrey P. Berman of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (Mara Fleder of counsel), for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman P.C., Larchmont (Geoffrey P. Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.
Order of fact finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2021, which, after a fact-finding hearing, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, determined that respondent mother had abandoned the subject children, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's request for a full dispositional hearing following its finding of abandonment (see Matter of Angel L.R. [Alan R.], 206 A.D.3d 451, 451, 167 N.Y.S.3d 796 [1st Dept. 2022] ). The finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the mother failed to communicate with the children or send them gifts or cards, or to communicate with the agency during the six months immediately before the filing of the petition (see Matter of Jasiaia Lew R. [Aylyn R.], 101 A.D.3d 568, 568–569, 957 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Nor did the mother establish that she was unable to maintain contact because she suffered from a severe hardship that so permeated her life that attempts at communication were not feasible, or that the agency prevented or discouraged her from doing so (see Social Services Law § 384–b[5][a] ; Matter of Jayvon Jose R. [Francisco S.], 154 A.D.3d 600, 601, 62 N.Y.S.3d 359 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Moreover, the mother had the opportunity to explain her abandonment of the children at the fact-finding hearing, and we are unpersuaded by her assertion that she has made recent significant progress in addressing her parenting deficits (see Matter of Angel L.-R., 206 A.D.3d at 451, 167 N.Y.S.3d 796 ). The attorney for the children supports the agency's position with respect to termination.
The law is well-established that suspended judgment is not a permissible disposition in a proceeding under Social Services Law § 384–b(4)(b), and we decline to hold otherwise (see Shavenon Edwin N. [Francisco N.], 84 A.D.3d 444, 445, 922 N.Y.S.2d 65 [1st Dept. 2011] ); Matter of Alexandryia M.M.B. [Heather C.], 132 A.D.3d 664, 664–665, 17 N.Y.S.3d 321 [2d Dept. 2015] ).