| Matter of Myles N. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02212 [49 AD3d 381] |
| March 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Myles N., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Denise N.N., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York City (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered December7, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, found that respondent mother had permanentlyneglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner agency made the requisite diligent efforts (Social Services Law § 384-b [7][a]; Matter of Lenny R., 22 AD3d240 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Despite a parent's compliance with theservice plan and regular visitation with the child, permanent neglect can still be found where hefails to acknowledge or gain adequate insight into the domestic violence problem that led to thefoster care placement in the first place (Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 AD3d 285 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 812 [2007]; Matter of GaleannF., 11 AD3d 255 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 703 [2005]). Even though theagency's progress notes in evidence covered only an 11-month period, respondent's testimonyconfirmed permanent neglect of the child for the requisite period, in accordance with the statute.
Respondent failed to preserve her contention that an inadequate foundation had been laid forthe admission of the agency's progress notes, and we decline to review it. In any event, theagency caseworker's testimony established that the highlighted portions of the notes were madein the ordinary course of business, and thus admissible as business records (Matter of Isaiah R., 35 AD3d 249[2006]).
Respondent's claim that Family Court failed to state the grounds for the permanent neglectfinding (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]) does not require reversal "where, as here,the record amply supports Family Court's ultimate finding" (Matter of Amber VV., 19 AD3d 767, 769 [2005]).
The court's termination of respondent's parental rights was entered on default and is thus notappealable (see Matter of Rosa S.,38 AD3d 216 [2007]). Were it properly before us, we would affirm. A preponderance of theevidence supported Family Court's [*2]determination that it wasin the child's best interests (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Star LeslieW., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) to terminate parental rights and enable the foster motherto adopt the child, given that he has lived in the foster home for his entire six years, and hasbonded with his foster mother and her children (Matter of Octavia Lorraine O., 34 AD3d 258 [2006]).Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.