| Matter of Lady Justice I. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03300 [50 AD3d 425] |
| April 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Lady Justice I., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Edna I., Appellant; Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families,Respondent. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Linda M. Diaz of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on orabout April 25, 2007, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondentmother's parental rights to the subject child and committed her custody and guardianship topetitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The record shows that the agency made diligent efforts toencourage and strengthen the parental relationship, by providing referrals to the mother forpsychiatric counseling and parenting skills classes, and scheduling visits with the child (see Matter of Lenny R., 22 AD3d240 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Despite these diligent efforts, themother, who was diagnosed as schizophrenic and bipolar, and was repeatedly incarcerated, wasinconsistent in her compliance with medical treatment, and failed to complete the parenting skillsprogram during the statutorily relevant time period (see Matter of Jacqueline A., 277AD2d 86 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 708 [2001]). A lack of cooperation by the mother,rather than a lack of diligence by the agency, supports the court's findings (see Matter ofSheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]).
The evidence at the dispositional hearing was preponderant that the best interests of the childwould be served by terminating the mother's parental rights so as to facilitate the child's adoptionby her foster mother with whom she has lived almost all of her young life and who has tended toher special needs (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). Thecircumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment. Concur—Lippman, P.J.,Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.