Opinion
2014-11-5
In the Matter of JEMEL M.A. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; Elizabeth C.B.A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Deshawn C.B. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; Elizabeth C.B.A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Charise C.K.A. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; Elizabeth C.B.A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Rayn R.B.-O. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; Elizabeth C.B.A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 4) In the Matter of Imani F.B.-O. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; Elizabeth C.B.A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 5) In the Matter of Nasir M.A. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; Elizabeth C.B.A. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 6).
Larry Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner—respondent.
Larry Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner—respondent.
Scalise & Hamilton, LLP, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Catherine A. Sheridan of counsel), attorney for the children.
In six related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from six orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), all entered July 1, 2013, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and freed the subject children for adoption.
ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother permanently neglected the subject children ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). The petitioner presented evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, inter alia, providing the mother with referrals to various drug treatment programs, parental training, and a housing program ( see Matter of Elijah D.W. [Tamica S.E.], 118 A.D.3d 812, 813, 987 N.Y.S.2d 203; Matter of Amonte M. [Mary M.], 112 A.D.3d 937, 938, 977 N.Y.S.2d 90). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the children's future by, inter alia, not completing parental training or a drug treatment program ( see Matter of Elijah D.W. [Tamica S.E.], 118 A.D.3d at 813, 987 N.Y.S.2d 203; Matter of Corey S. [Angel S.], 112 A.D.3d 641, 642, 975 N.Y.S.2d 906).
Moreover, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate her parental rights and free them for adoption ( see Matter of Angel R.F. [Nicholas F.], 114 A.D.3d 781, 782, 980 N.Y.S.2d 528). BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.