| Matter of Leah Tanisha A.-N. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01750 [48 AD3d 801] |
| February 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Leah Tanisha A.-N., Also Known as Leah A. NewYork Foundling Hospital, Respondent; Omar Xavier A. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Ayal Omar A.-N., Also Known as Ayal A. New York Foundling Hospital,Respondent; Omar Xavier A. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Iesha DanaA.-N., Also Known as Iesha A. New York Foundling Hospital, Respondent; Omar Xavier A. etal., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Omotayo Orederu, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant Jasmine N. Jeremiah Quinlan, Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. (Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), forrespondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Marcia Egger of counsel), LawGuardian.
In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the parents separately appeal from threeorders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), eachentered March 6, 2006 (one as to each child), which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings,found that the subject children were permanently neglected and committed guardianship andcustody rights of the children to the New York Foundling Hospital for purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the agencymust, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled itsstatutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-childrelationship (see Matter of Jamie M., 63 NY2d 388, 390 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G.,61 NY2d 368, 373 [1984]). If the agency establishes that it made diligent efforts, the court isrequired to determine whether the parent fulfilled her duties to maintain contact with and plan forthe future of the child (see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 373 [1984]).
Here, the agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the mother and the children. Theagency scheduled numerous visits with the children, held semiannual service plan reviewmeetings, referred the mother to drug treatment programs, and assisted her in finding suitablehousing (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 143 [1984]; Matter of DeajahShabri T., 44 AD3d 1060 [2007]; Matter of Olivia F., 34 AD3d 234 [2006]).However, the mother failed to plan for the future of her children. Specifically, she failed tocomplete a drug rehabilitation program and failed to secure suitable housing (see Matter ofLeon G., 7 AD3d 524 [2004]; Matter of Ronell Dashawn P., 296 AD2d 502 [2002];Matter of Maldrina R., 219 AD2d 723 [1995]).
In addition, the Family Court properly determined that, despite the agency's diligent efforts,the father failed to plan for the return of the children. Although the agency provided the fatherwith several referrals to anger management programs, the father failed to complete an angermanagement course within the statutory period (see Matter of Olivia F., 34 AD3d 234[2006]).
Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interest of thechildren to be placed for adoption (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148[1984]; Matter of "Baby Boy" E., 42 AD3d 536 [2007]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.