| Matter of Jason H. (Lisa K.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04095 [118 AD3d 1066] |
| June 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jason H., a Permanently NeglectedChild. Delaware County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lisa K.,Appellant. |
Rosemarie Richards, Gilbertsville, for appellant.
D. Jeremy Rase, Delaware County Department of Social Services, Delhi, forrespondent.
Paul G.J. Madison, Stamford, attorney for the child.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County (Lambert,J.), entered December 10, 2012, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law§ 384-b, granted petitioner's motion to revoke a suspended judgment, andterminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent's son was removed from her custody and placed in foster care when hewas just shy of two months old based upon allegations of drug use, domestic violenceand criminal activity in the home. In May 2011, respondent stipulated that she hadpermanently neglected her son and consented to a one-year suspended judgment subjectto numerous terms and conditions.[FN*]In October 2011, petitioner moved torevoke the suspended judgment and terminate respondent's parental rights, alleging thatrespondent had violated certain conditions of the judgment. Following a hearing, FamilyCourt agreed, revoked the suspended judgment and terminated respondent's parentalrights. Respondent appeals.
We affirm. Initially, to the extent that respondent argues that petitioner failed toprove that it made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-childrelationship, inasmuch as she did not appeal Family Court's May 2011 order adjudicatingthe child to be permanently neglected, the issue is not properly before us (see Matter of Abbigail EE.[Elizabeth EE.], 106 AD3d 1205, 1206-1207 [2013]). In any event, respondent'sadmission that she permanently neglected the child dispensed with the need for petitionerto present such evidence (see id.; Matter of Megan L.G.H. [Theresa G.H.], 102 AD3d 869,869-870 [2013]; Matter of Aidan D., 58 AD3d 906, 908 [2009]).
"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 forreunification to occur" (Matterof Alyssa C. [Steven C.], 93 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012] [citations omitted];see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]; Matter of Madelyn D. [DirellD.], 112 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2013]). A parent "must comply with the terms ofthe suspended judgment and, if a preponderance of the evidence establishes the parent'snoncompliance, Family Court may revoke the judgment and terminate that party'sparental rights" (Matter ofClifton ZZ. [Latrice ZZ.], 75 AD3d 683, 684 [2010]; accord Matter of Cole WW.[Amanda WW.], 106 AD3d 1408, 1409 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 865[2013]; Matter of Abbigail EE. [Elizabeth EE.], 106 AD3d at 1207).
Here, respondent failed to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment innumerous respects. She missed mental health appointments, was unsuccessfullydischarged from a substance abuse treatment program and failed to submit to randomdrug screening. Moreover, respondent admitted to using illegal drugs and abusingprescription medication during the time period that the suspended judgment was ineffect. Despite her contentions to the contrary, respondent's several violations were notthe result of attempts by petitioner to thwart her efforts to comply, but rather the productof her own inability to successfully complete mandated treatment and refrain from illegaldrug use (see Matter of Clifton ZZ. [Latrice ZZ.], 75 AD3d at 685). Suchevidence, in addition to demonstrating her noncompliance, also indicates that respondenthas not made progress "to overcome the specific problems which led to the removal ofthe child" (Matter of JonathanJ., 47 AD3d 992, 993 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008] [internalquotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Ronnie P. [Danielle Q.], 85 AD3d 1246,1247 [2011]; Matter ofFrederick MM., 23 AD3d 951, 953 [2005]). Accordingly, Family Court'sdetermination that respondent violated the provisions of the suspended judgment issupported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Cole WW. [AmandaWW.], 106 AD3d at 1410; Matter of Abbigail EE. [Elizabeth EE.], 106AD3d at 1207).
"While a parent's failure to comply with the conditions of a suspended judgment doesnot automatically compel termination of parental rights, that noncompliance constitutes'strong evidence that termination is, in fact, in the best interests of the child[ ]' "(Matter of Marquise JJ.[Brithany JJ.], 103 AD3d 937, 939 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 859[2013], quoting Matter of Clifton ZZ. [Latrice ZZ.], 75 AD3d at 685; accordMatter of Madelyn D. [Direll D.], 112 AD3d at 1166). Respondent has failed toadequately respond to the numerous efforts made to assist her in overcoming hersubstance abuse issues, and a psychological assessment concluded that she lacks thejudgment and consistency required to care for the child, particularly given his specialneeds. Further, the child has been in foster care for all but the first two months of his lifeand has formed a strong bond with his current foster parents, who have provided a stablehome for him and demonstrated an ability to meet his needs. Under these circumstances,we decline to disturb Family Court's determination that no exceptional circumstancesexist warranting an extension of the suspended judgment and that termination ofrespondent's parental rights was in the best interests of the child (see Matter of ColeWW. [Amanda WW.], 106 AD3d at 1409; Matter of Abbigail EE. [ElizabethEE.], 106 AD3d at 1207; Matter of Elias QQ. [Stephanie QQ.], 72 AD3d 1165,1166-1167 [2010]; Matter of Jonathan J., 47 AD3d at 993).
Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *:Petitioner alsocommenced a proceeding against the child's father, who subsequently surrendered hisparental rights.