| Matter of Michael Phillip T. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08241 [44 AD3d 1062] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Michael Phillip T., Also Known as Michael T.Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Laura T., Appellant. (Proceeding No.1.) In the Matter of Marguerite Juanita T., Also Known as Marguerite T. Administration forChildren's Services et al., Respondents; Laura T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter ofElizabeth Ashley Paulette T., Also Known as Elizabeth T. Administration for Children's Serviceset al., Respondents; Laura T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Gabriel Herbert T.,Also Known as Gabriel H., Also Known as Gabriel T. Administration for Children's Services etal., Respondents; Laura T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent LittleFlower Children and Family Services of New York. Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian.
In four related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from four orders ofdisposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.) (one as to each child), each dated July12, 2006, which, after a hearing, determined that she failed to comply with the terms andconditions of an "order of suspended judgment, disposition, adjudication, findings of fact, andconclusions of law" of the same court dated March 1, 2005, and, after a dispositional hearing,terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject children tothe Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and Little Flower Children andFamily Services of New York, for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly admitted hearsay evidence atthe violation and dispositional hearings (see Family Ct Act § 624; Matter ofJamaal DeQuan M., 24 AD3d 667 [2005]; Matter of N.R.W., 16 AD3d 1099, 1100[2005]; Matter of Veronica W., 289 AD2d 1055, 1056 [2001]; Matter of Robert T.,270 AD2d 961 [2000]).
The petitioner satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence (seee.g. Matter of Ricky Joseph V., 24 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]), that the mother had violated theterms and conditions of a suspended judgment by being discharged from a drug rehabilitationprogram and continuing to use illicit substances (see Matter of Eric Jule C., 39 AD3d 346[2007]; Matter of Edward GG., 35 AD3d 1144, 1145 [2006]; Matter of Vanessa R.,249 AD2d 27 [1998]; Matter of Grace Q., 208 AD2d 976, 977 [1994]). Moreover,the record supports the Family Court's determination that termination of the mother's parentalrights was in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005,1007 [2006]; Matter of Arnold M., 12 AD3d 677, 678-679 [2004]; Matter of GraceQ., 200 AD2d 894, 895-896 [1994]).
The mother's remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court, have beenrendered academic in light of our determination, or are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covelloand McCarthy, JJ., concur.