| Matter of Angel P. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07757 [44 AD3d 448] |
| October 16, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Angel P. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Cynthia G.-P., Appellant; Family Support Systems Unlimited, Inc.,Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York City, for Family Support Systems Unlimited, Inc., respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Amy Hausknecht of counsel),Law Guardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or aboutApril 15, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, upon findings of permanent neglect,terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and committed custody andguardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for thepurpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the findings of permanent neglect against respondentmother based on her failure to plan for her children's future, as well as to maintain substantial andcontinuous contact with the children, for a period of more than one year (Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [a]). Despite the diligent efforts of petitioner agency to strengthen the parentalrelationship, which included providing the mother with referrals to parenting skills classes,addressing her substance abuse problems and scheduling regular visitation, the mother failed,during the statutorily relevant time period, to complete the requisite programs and remain drugfree (see Matter of Tiffany R., 7AD3d 297 [2004]), and her visits with the children were sporadic at best (see Matter ofEmily A., 216 AD2d 124 [1995]). Notably, during the last three months of the permanentneglect period, the mother failed to visit the children or maintain contact with the agency, whichexplains the sparse entries in the agency's progress notes during that period of time.
At the dispositional hearing, the agency sustained its burden of proof by establishing by apreponderance of the evidence that the best interests of the children would be served by [*2]terminating the mother's parental rights so as to facilitate thechildren's adoption by their foster mother, who has cared for the children for most of their livesand addressed their special needs (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148[1984]). The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment. Although themother had completed several of the requisite programs by the time of the dispositional hearing,she remained uncooperative about random drug testing and failed to consistently attend anout-patient drug program.
We have considered respondent mother's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.