| Matter of Tynell S. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06998 [43 AD3d 1171] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tynell S. Harlem Dowling-Westside Center forChildren and Family Services, Respondent; Annette R.-S. et al., Appellants. In the Matter ofDominique S., Also Known as Dominick S. Harlem Dowling-Westside Center for Children andFamily Services, Respondent; Annette R.-S. et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Devonay S., AlsoKnown as Devona S. Harlem Dowling-Westside Center for Children and Family Services,Respondent; Annette R.-S. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Edward E. Caesar, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant Carl S. (Anonymous). Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler, Diane Pazar, and Robin Karasyk ofcounsel), Law Guardian. Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel),for respondent (joining in brief of Law Guardian).
In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother and the father separately appealfrom three orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.),all dated March 14, 2006, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that theypermanently neglected the subject children, terminated their parental rights, and transferredguardianship and custody of the subject children to the Commissioner of Social Services of theCity of New York and the Harlem Dowling-Westside Center for Children and Family Servicesfor the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
As an initial matter, based on this record there is no merit to the Law Guardian's contentionthat the mother's appeals should be dismissed as untimely taken. Contrary to the Law Guardian'scontention, there is no evidence in the record that the Family Court mailed the orders offact-finding and disposition with notices of entry to the mother. Accordingly, it cannot bedetermined on the record before the court whether the mother filed her notice of appeal withinthe required time period following service of the notices of entry of the orders (seeFamily Court Act § 1113).
Contrary to the parents' contentions, the Family Court properly found that the agencyexercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship and to reunite the family by,among other things, scheduling regular and meaningful visits with the children and referring theparents to programs providing domestic violence counseling (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 373 [1984]). An agency that hasexercised diligent efforts but is "faced with an uncooperative parent is deemed to have fulfilledits statutory obligations" (Matter of Kahori Emmanuel A., 287 AD2d 452, 452 [2001];see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 144 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61NY2d at 385). Notwithstanding the agency's efforts, the parents failed to plan for the future oftheir children (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). "At a minimum, parentsmust take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home"(Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986], quoting Matter of Leon RR.,48 NY2d 117, 125 [1979]). "This parental obligation necessarily includes addressing andovercoming [the] specific personal and familial problems which initially endangered or provedharmful to the child, and which may in the future endanger or possibly harm the child"(Matter of Sonia H., 177 AD2d 575, 576 [1991]; see Matter of Leon RR., 48NY2d at 125; Matter of Travis Lee G., 169 AD2d 769, 770 [1991]).
Here, the father admitted that he never followed up on the referrals and never attended anyprogram of domestic violence counseling. The mother, though she attended several sessions ofindividual and group domestic violence counseling, never completed these counseling sessionsand never attained any insight as to why she had to attend. Despite a previous order finding thather husband had committed abuse, and she had committed abuse by failing to protect theirchildren, the mother never acknowledged her responsibility for the removal of the children.Because neither parent gained insight into their previous behavior or addressed the issues that ledto their children's [*2]removal from the home, the Family Courtcorrectly found that, despite diligent efforts by the agency, the parents failed to adequately planfor their children's future and, therefore, the children were permanently neglected (see Matterof Leon RR., 48 NY2d at 125; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006]; Matter of Justina Rose D., 28 AD3d659, 660 [2006]; Matter of AjuwonH., 18 AD3d 752, 753 [2005]). Furthermore, the Family Court correctly determined thatit would be in the children's best interests to be freed for adoption by their foster parents, withwhom they had been living since 1995 and, with regard to Devonay, since shortly after her birthin 1996 (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d at 1006; Matter of Ajuwon H., 18AD3d at 753; Matter of Diana L., 299 AD2d 359, 360 [2002]).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy,JJ., concur.