| Matter of Alyssa C. (Steven C.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02363 [93 AD3d 1111] |
| March 29, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Alyssa C. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Steven C.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Ingrid Olsen-Tjensvold, Cortland County Department of Social Services, Cortland, forrespondent. Elizabeth Aherne, Ithaca, attorney for the children.
Mercure, Acting P.J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County(Campbell, J.), entered June 15, 2011, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceedingpursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to revoke a suspended judgment, and terminatedrespondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the father of the subject children (born in 2007 and 2008), who have been infoster care since 2009. Upon respondent's admissions, the children were adjudged to bepermanently neglected in 2010. The judgment was suspended for 12 months, subject to hiscompliance with certain conditions. In this proceeding, petitioner alleges that respondent violatedthose conditions in various respects. Following a hearing, Family Court agreed, revoked [*2]the suspended judgment and terminated respondent's parentalrights.[FN*]Respondent now appeals.
We affirm. The purpose of a suspended judgment is to allow a parent who has permanentlyneglected his or her child a brief grace period to complete the goals necessary for reunification tooccur (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]; Matter of Clifton ZZ. [Latrice ZZ.], 75AD3d 683, 683 [2010]). If a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parent failedto comply with the terms of the suspended judgment, Family Court is empowered to revoke thejudgment and terminate his or her parental rights (see Matter of Ronnie P. [Danielle Q.], 85 AD3d 1246, 1246-1247[2011]; Matter of Clifton ZZ. [Latrice ZZ.], 75 AD3d at 684).
Here, the record establishes that respondent failed to comply with the terms of the suspendedjudgment in numerous respects. He did not complete mandated treatment for alcoholdependence, continued to drink, and lied about his treatment during a subsequent substanceabuse evaluation. Indeed, alcohol was found at respondent's residence, a filthy home that stank ofgarbage and cat urine and that he shared with an individual who had previously been found tohave abused and neglected his own children. Respondent was alerted that his residence wasinappropriate and unacceptable, but nevertheless did little to find a more suitable home.Moreover, he missed over half of his scheduled visits with the children and willfully violated hischild support obligations. Accordingly, a sound and substantial basis existed for Family Court todetermine that respondent had violated the terms of the suspended judgment, and that terminatinghis parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Ronnie P. [DanielleQ.], 85 AD3d at 1247; Matter ofFrederick MM., 23 AD3d 951, 952-953 [2005]; cf. Matter of Krystal B. [Thomas B.], 77 AD3d 1110, 1110-1111[2010]).
The jurisdictional argument of petitioner and the attorney for the children has beenconsidered and found to be lacking in merit.
Rose, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote *: The mother of the childrensurrendered her parental rights.