| Matter of Bryce R.W. v Sarah J.B. |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 07006 |
| Decided on September 29, 2006 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on September 29, 2006
PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND GREEN, JJ.
1101.1 CAF 06-00001
and
SARAH J.B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (PROCEEDING NO. 1.) —————————————————-
MATTER OF SAVANNAH W. —————————————————- ORLEANS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;
and
SARAH J.B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (PROCEEDING NO. 2.) —————————————————-
MATTER OF DEBORAH W., PETITIONER,
and
ORLEANS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. (PROCEEDING NO. 3.) —————————————————-
MATTER OF DENISE F., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
and
SARAH J.B., RESPONDENT. (PROCEEDING NO. 4.)
Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Orleans County (James P. Punch, J.), entered September 26, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The amended order, among other things, terminated the parental rights of respondent Sarah J.B. with [*2]respect to her two children.
SHIRLEY A. GORMAN, ALBION, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
JAMES D. BELL, ALBION, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
MARY ANNE CONNELL, LAW GUARDIAN, BUFFALO, FOR BRYCE R.W. AND SAVANNAH W.
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother (respondent) appeals from an amended order of disposition that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to her two children. Respondent's contention that Family Court abused its discretion in failing to issue a suspended judgment is not preserved for our review because respondent did not request a suspended judgment (see Matter of Rosalinda R., 16 AD3d 1063, 1064, lv denied 5 NY3d 702). In any event, the evidence at the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent was unlikely to change her behavior, and we thus conclude that a suspended judgment would not be in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Meko H., 28 AD3d 1252, lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [July 5, 2006]; Matter of Jusef P., 298 AD2d 968; Matter of Sonny H.B., 249 AD2d 940). Contrary to respondent's further contention, the court did not err in refusing to award custody of the children to petitioner grandmother. Rather, the evidence supports the court's conclusion that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the custody of petitioner-respondent Orleans County Department of Social Services to allow their adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Donald W., 17 AD3d 728, 729-730, lv denied 5 NY3d 705; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480, 481-482; Matter of Tiffany Malika B., 215 AD2d 200, 201, lv denied 86 NY2d 707). We have considered respondent's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.
Entered: September 29, 2006
Clerk of the Court