Opinion
14307 Dkt. No. B-00293/15 Case No. 2020-04659
10-07-2021
In the MATTER OF HEAVEN GABRIELLA B., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Tamara B., Respondent–Appellant, v. St. Dominic's Home, Petitioner–Respondent.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Law Office of Ira L. Eras, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for child.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Law Office of Ira L. Eras, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for child.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Gonza´lez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gilbert A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about February 28, 2020, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights and committed the 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.
Family Court correctly determined that reasonable efforts by petitioner to return the child to respondent's home were no longer required ( Family Court Act § 1039–b[a] ). Petitioner demonstrated that respondent's parental rights to several of the child's older siblings had been involuntarily terminated ( id. § 1039–b[b][6] ; see e.g. Matter of Nevaeh Karen B. [Tamara B.], 134 A.D.3d 438, 19 N.Y.S.3d 737 [1st Dept. 2015] ), and respondent failed to show that providing reasonable efforts would be in the child's best interests, not contrary to the child's health and safety, and would likely result in her reunification with the child in the foreseeable future ( Family Ct Act § 1039–b ).
The determination of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to plan for the child's future during the relevant period (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ). Respondent demonstrated a lack of insight into her parenting deficiencies and her inability to provide the child with a safe and appropriate home (see Matter of Nevaeh Karen B., 134 A.D.3d at 439, 19 N.Y.S.3d 737 ). Moreover, she failed to take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from the home, including failing to complete her individual counseling program designed to assist her in anger management, missing visits, and engaging in aggressive and inappropriate behavior towards agency staff and the child's foster mother ( id. ; see Matter of Angelica D. [Deborah D.,], 157 A.D.3d 587, 69 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Shilloh M.J. [Jamesina M.J.], 183 A.D.3d 540, 123 N.Y.S.3d 132 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
The record supports the court's determination that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating respondent's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption (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] ; Matter of Alexandria D. [Brenda D.], 136 A.D.3d 604, 604, 26 N.Y.S.3d 270 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, and find them unavailing.