| Matter of Raine QQ. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04024 [51 AD3d 1106] |
| May 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Raine QQ., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Chenango County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Marika QQ.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Jody P. Eckert, Chenango County Department of Social Services, Norwich, for respondent. Mary C. Militano, Law Guardian, Scotia.
Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chenango County (Sullivan, J.),entered July 18, 2007, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to SocialServices Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent's child to be permanently neglected, andterminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent's son (born in 1993) was removed from her care in 2002. Family Court twiceadjudicated the child neglected due to her alcohol abuse while she was caring for the child. In2006, petitioner filed a petition seeking to terminate respondent's parental rights based uponpermanent neglect. Following a fact-finding hearing, the court determined that respondentpermanently neglected her son. After a dispositional hearing, the court terminated her parentalrights and freed the child for adoption. Respondent appeals, addressing only the disposition.
Family Court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights rather than imposing asuspended judgment. The disposition following a determination of permanent neglect must be[*2]based solely on the best interests of the child, with nopresumption that a return to the parent promotes those interests (see Family Ct Act§ 631; Matter of James X., 37AD3d 1003, 1007 [2007]; Matter ofArianna OO., 29 AD3d 1117, 1117-1118 [2006]). Here, granting deference to the court'schoice of dispositional alternatives, the child's interests would not be served by giving respondentthe second chance provided under a suspended judgment (see Matter of James X., 37AD3d at 1007; Matter of JoshuaBB., 27 AD3d 867, 869 [2006]). Although respondent remained sober at the time of thehearings and was improving her life, she had numerous chances to redeem herself in the morethan four years while her child was removed from her care. Each time she progressed tosupervised and unsupervised visitation, she relapsed by consuming alcohol while she was caringfor the child. She violated conditions of drug court more than once, resulting in her incarceration.Meanwhile, the child was thriving in foster care. Although the child's foster parent was notwilling to adopt him (compare Matter ofJayde M., 36 AD3d 1168, 1169-1170 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Matter of Raena O., 31 AD3d 946,948 [2006]), the child was informed about and "okay" with the idea of being adopted (compare Matter of Shakima Renee M.,43 AD3d 343, 344 [2007]). Freeing the child for adoption provided him with prospects forpermanency and some sense of the stability he deserved, rather than the perpetual limbo causedby unfulfilled hopes of returning to respondent's care. Accordingly, termination of respondent'sparental rights was appropriate.
Finally, because respondent's parental rights were terminated following an adversarialproceeding resulting in a finding of permanent neglect, not as part of a voluntary surrender,Family Court lacked the authority to order posttermination visitation (see Matter of Melissa DD., 45 AD3d1219, 1221-1222 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 701 [2008]; Matter of JamesX., 37 AD3d at 1007; Matter ofJessi W., 20 AD3d 620, 621 [2005]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.