| Matter of Mentora Monique B. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07754 [44 AD3d 445] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Mentora Monique B. and Others, Infants. BenitaB., Appellant; Concord Family Services et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Abramson, New York City (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondents. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on orabout January 13, February 23 and April 4, 2005, which terminated respondent mother's parentalrights to the subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioner agenciesand the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services for purposes of adoption,unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, the dispositions as to Ebony M. and Imani B.vacated in their entirety, the disposition as to Mentora Monique B. vacated only with respect toher placement, the matter remanded for reopened dispositional hearings with respect to all threechildren, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The evidence at the fact-finding hearing established, by clear and convincing evidence, thatpetitioners exerted diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, but thatrespondent nonetheless failed to visit the children regularly or plan for their future within themeaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a).
The agencies involved in this case (including another agency with custody of two more ofrespondent's children, not at issue on this appeal) maintained contact with one another andcoordinated their efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between respondent and thechildren. Concord regularly scheduled biweekly visitation between respondent and the children,except for Mentora, who refused to see her mother.
Nevertheless, respondent failed either to visit the children consistently or to plan for theirreturn. She missed 75% of her scheduled visits with them. Despite a finding of severe sexualabuse committed by an invitee of respondent's then paramour, she continued to denyresponsibility. She refused to accept any referrals for the first 7 to 12 months after the children'splacement, and thereafter failed to appear for two scheduled mental health examinations at [*2]Bellevue Hospital. It is clear from the record that respondent failedto comply with what she termed "two perfunctory referrals" because of her refusal toacknowledge the problems that led to the children's placement. She did not submit to a mentalhealth evaluation until August 2003, almost two years after their placement. After learning thatrespondent admitted, during such examination, having previously abused alcohol, Concordreferred her to an Alcoholics Anonymous program. She failed to attend this program despitebeing informed that such failure could result in termination of her parental rights. She also failedto inform the agency of her history of PCP abuse dating back to age 13, and her continued useuntil as recently as August 2004.
Respondent's argument that Community Counseling and Mediation failed to exercise diligentefforts is unavailing. That agency was not required to duplicate the efforts of Concord, which hadcase-planning responsibility (see Matter of Joshua J., 196 AD2d 719 [1993]).
However, changed circumstances warrant remand for a reopened dispositional hearing withrespect to all three children. According to petitioners and the law guardian, during the pendencyof these proceedings, the foster mother of Ebony and Imani passed away, and these children arecurrently residing in the nonkinship foster home of family friends. These children (currently 13and 14) are uncertain as to whether they wish to be adopted, and the foster parents are uncertainas to whether they wish to adopt them.
Similarly, Mentora has since been removed from the home of her preadoptive foster motherand has had two children of her own, who are also in foster care. Mentora is currently residing ina mother-child group home. The agency plan is for her to be placed with a previous foster parentwith whom Mentora has maintained contact, and with whom she has expressed a desire to beplaced. Although we affirm the termination of respondent's parental rights as to Mentora, noevidence was adduced at the hearing regarding the fitness of this individual as a foster parent, sothe matter must be remanded for a new dispositional hearing as to Mentora as well, on thislimited issue of her placement. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley andCatterson, JJ.