| Matter of Sean LaMonte Vonta M. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07073 [54 AD3d 635] |
| September 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Sean LaMonte Vonta M. and Another, ChildrenAlleged to be Permanently Neglected. Sean LaMonte M., Appellant; Commissioner ofAdministration for Children's Services et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Joseph T. Gatti, New York, for Catholic Guardian Society, respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Doneth Gayle of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered August 29, 2006,which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondentfather's parental rights to the subject children and committed the custody and guardianship of thechildren to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence thatthe agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship and thatnevertheless respondent failed to plan for the children's future (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368 [1984]). Respondent testifiedthat he was aware of the elements of the service plan with which he was required to complybefore the children could be returned to him. However, despite the agency's repeated, meaningfulefforts to assist him, respondent failed to remain drug free, visit the children regularly, and timelycomplete a drug program, the principal barrier to his regaining custody of the children (seeMatter of Christina Jeanette C., 168 AD2d 351 [1990]).
A preponderance of the evidence at the dispositional hearing supports the determination thatit is in the best interests of the children to terminate respondent's parental rights so as to facilitatethe children's adoption by their foster mother, with whom they have lived for most of their livesand have developed a close relationship, and who has tended to their medical and developmentalneeds (see Matter of Taaliyah SimoneS.D., 28 AD3d 371 [2006]). Under the [*2]circumstances, a suspended judgment is not warranted (seeMatter of Shaka Efion C., 207 AD2d 740 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli,Friedman, Williams and Moskowitz, JJ.