| Matter of Destiny EE. (Karen FF.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08519 [123 AD3d 1165] |
| December 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Destiny EE., a Child Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Karen FF., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nigal FF., a Child Alleged tobe Permanently Neglected. Ulster County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Karen FF., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
Ted J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
Heather D. Harp, Ulster County Department of Social Services, Kingston, forrespondent.
Marian Cocose, Bearsville, attorney for the children.
Daniel Gartenstein, Kingston, attorney for the child.
Rose, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Ulster County (Mizel, J.),entered April 10, 2013 and April 11, 2013, which granted petitioner's applications, intwo proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate thesubject children to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent's parentalrights.
Respondent is the mother of Brandon EE., Nigal FF. and Destiny EE. (born in 1997,2000 and 2003, respectively). Brandon and Nigal were first determined to be neglectedand were placed in petitioner's care in 2001, based on a finding that Nigal's father hadsexually abused Brandon. Although respondent regained custody in 2003, in 2007 sheconsented to findings of neglect and placement of all three children with petitioner aftershe allowed Nigal to travel out-of-state to spend the summer with his father.[FN1] Petitioner commencedthese proceedings in 2009 alleging that Nigal and Destiny (hereinafter the children) werepermanently neglected and seeking to terminate respondent's parental rights.[FN2] After lengthyfact-finding and dispositional hearings, Family Court granted the petitions. Respondentappeals, primarily contending that petitioner failed to exercise diligent efforts to reuniteher with the children.[FN3]
As relevant here, in order to establish permanent neglect, petitioner was required toprove, by clear and convincing evidence, that "it made diligent efforts to strengthen theparent-child relationship and that, despite those efforts, the parent has failed to. . . substantially plan for the child[ren]'s future for one year after the agencyhas been charged with the child[ren]'s care" (Matter of Tatianna K. [Claude U.], 79 AD3d 1184, 1185[2010]; accord Matter ofSummer G. [Amy F.], 93 AD3d 959, 960 [2012]; see Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [7] [a]). Diligent efforts include, among other things,
"creating a service plan that offers appropriate services to the parents to resolve theproblems preventing return of the child[ren], making suitable arrangements for visitationand advising the parent of the child[ren]'s progress" (Matter of Tatianna K. [ClaudeU.], 79 AD3d at 1185).
Here, respondent lost custody of the children as a result of her inability to recognizethe danger posed by Nigal's father, and the main impediments to her ability to regaincustody were identified as her failure to acknowledge what had occurred to Brandon, herinability to understand and address the children's resulting issues and her lack of suitablehousing and employment. Our review of the record reveals ample support for theconclusion that petitioner fulfilled its obligation to engage in diligent efforts to reuniterespondent with the children (see Matter of Arianna I. [Roger I.], 100 AD3d 1281, 1283[2012]; Matter of Neal TT.[Deborah UU.], 97 AD3d 869, 870 [2012]; Matter of Mary MM. [Leuetta NN.], 72 AD3d 1427, 1428[2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]). Petitioner regularly advised respondentof the necessary steps to have the children returned to her via weekly in-personcounseling, monthly letters updating her on the children's progress and interactive serviceplan review meetings. Respondent's caseworkers provided referrals to appropriate serviceproviders, including mental health services and housing and employment agencies thatwere capable of meeting respondent's specific needs. Petitioner also facilitatedmeaningful visitation by scheduling and supervising 150 visits with the children. Further,respondent was provided with advice on how to plan for the visits, was counseled duringthe visits and received tips following visits for making them more effective. Althoughthere were, at times, a lack of coordination and inconsistent communication frompetitioner and its service provider, particularly with respect to whether respondent'sout-of-state aunt was an appropriate placement option for the children, Family Courtappropriately attributed these isolated incidents to the length of time that the children hadspent in petitioner's care, the myriad issues that needed to be addressed and the turnoverthat occurred in personnel working with petitioner to achieve the stated goals.Respondent's failure to follow through on the recommended services and to consistentlyaddress the issues preventing the return of the children does not reflect a lack of diligentefforts (see Matter of Kayden E.[Luis E.], 111 AD3d 1094, 1097 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 862 [2014];Matter of Neal TT. [Deborah UU.], 97 AD3d at 870-871; Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.],90 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 806 [2012]).
The record also supports Family Court's conclusion that respondent failed toadequately plan for the children's future. Although respondent regularly exercised hervisitation, underwent some counseling and took some parenting classes, she otherwisefailed to pursue the services offered to her. Respondent remained inconsistent in herrecognition of the abuse perpetrated against Brandon, made minimal effort in seeking ajob, did not enroll in recommended therapy programs and, based on her inability toadequately address the children's issues, was unable to progress beyond supervised visitswith them. Accordingly, the record establishes that she made little or no progress inaddressing the issues that prevented the children's return (see Matter of Alister UU. [AngelaVV.], 117 AD3d 1137, 1138-1139 [2014]; Matter of Ronnie P. [Danielle Q.], 77 AD3d 1094,1096-1097 [2010]; Matter ofMaelee N., 48 AD3d 929, 930 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 709 [2008]).Inasmuch as the children have made considerable improvement in foster care and havebonded with their foster family, who have expressed a desire to adopt the children, thereis a sound and substantial basis in the record supporting Family Court's determinationthat termination of respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests (seeMatter of Neal TT. [Deborah UU.], 97 AD3d at 871-872; Matter of Summer G.[Amy F.], 93 AD3d at 962; Matter of Mary MM. [Leuetta NN.], 72 AD3d at1429).
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders areaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote 1: We affirmed an orderextending the placement of the children that changed the permanency goal from "returnto parent" to "placement for adoption" (Matter of Destiny EE. [Karen FF.], 82 AD3d 1292 [2011]).
Footnote 2: We affirmed the denialof respondent's motion to vacate the 2007 neglect findings and dismiss the petitions forpermanent neglect (Matter ofDestiny EE. [Karen FF.], 90 AD3d 1437 [2011], lv dismissed 19 NY3d856 [2012]).
Footnote 3: A separate proceedingwas brought with respect to Brandon. Although he was determined to be permanentlyneglected, a suspended judgment was entered on consent and he was returned torespondent's custody. That disposition is not before us.