| Matter of Saraphina Ameila S. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03112 [50 AD3d 378] |
| April 10, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Saraphina Ameila S., a Child Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Rosa Mary W., Appellant; New Alternatives For Children, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about January22, 2007, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother had permanently neglectedthe subject child, terminated her parental rights, and awarded custody and guardianship topetitioner for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's argument that her admission of neglect was invalid lacks merit, since the recordreflects she was informed by the court of the consequences of her admission, and of the fact thatshe did not have to make an admission and could proceed to a hearing where she could presentand cross-examine witnesses. She admitted that she was not forced or threatened to make theadmission, and she had ample time to discuss the matter with her attorney. Furthermore, inaddition to admitting, through her counsel, her alcohol abuse, she admitted having neglected thechild by failing to comply with the rehabilitation referrals made by petitioner during theyear-long period when petitioner was trying to help her. Based on this record, the admission wasvalid (see Matter of Victoria B., 185 AD2d 811 [1992]; Matter of William D.,178 AD2d 475 [1991], appeal dismissed 79 NY2d 1040 [1992], cert denied sub nom.Dorothy W. v Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y., 506 US 1038 [1992]).
Respondent failed to object to the date of termination of the suspended judgment stated in theorder of disposition, and did not move to vacate that order. She also failed to raise the argumentthat the violation petition was untimely. Accordingly, she failed to preserve this issue forappellate review.
The finding that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the child's best interest issupported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the child, now eight years old, has[*2]been well cared for and has bonded with the foster family,with whom she has lived since infancy, and which includes her biological brother who has beenadopted by the same foster mother. Respondent's recent commendable effort in overcoming heralcohol abuse is belated. For more than six years, she failed to complete a drug and alcoholprogram. The evidence shows the child would be adversely affected by removal at this pointfrom the only home she has ever known (Matter of Rochon Lela D., 37 AD3d 311 [2007], lv denied8 NY3d 815 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.