| Matter of Rebecca KK. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07819 [55 AD3d 984] |
| October 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Rebecca KK., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Sharon PP.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Ingrid Olsen-Tjensvold, Cortland County Department of Social Services, Cortland, forrespondent. Pamela B. Bleiwas, Law Guardian, Ithaca.
Mercure, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), enteredOctober 3, 2007, which, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10-A,continued the suspension of visitation between respondent and the child.
The underlying facts are more fully set forth in a prior decision of this Court affirming adetermination that respondent, the subject child's mother, had neglected the child (51 AD3d 1086[2008]). This Court further concluded that it would be in the child's best interests to remain inpetitioner's custody and that respondent's visitation should remain suspended (id. at 1088). InSeptember 2007, a permanency hearing was conducted, during which petitioner presented evidencethat respondent had not substantially complied with the terms of the prior dispositional order, includingthe requirements that she complete parenting and mental health courses and cooperate withcaseworkers. Petitioner also informed the court that approximately one month prior to the hearing, itfiled a severe abuse petition against respondent and, therefore, it sought to change the permanencyplanning goal to the termination of respondent's parental rights. [*2]Thereafter, Family Court issued a permanency order that, among otherthings, continued the placement of the child in petitioner's custody, modified the permanency plan forthe child to placement for adoption, and continued suspension of respondent's visitation. Respondentappeals and we now affirm.
Respondent asserts that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable efforts toeffectuate the prior permanency goal of returning the child to her; rather, respondent maintains,petitioner frustrated that goal by denying visitation. Respondent argues that the suspension of visitationwas not in the child's best interests, and that Family Court further erred in changing the permanencygoal to adoption inasmuch as that goal was not set forth in the permanency hearing report that wasserved, as required, more than 14 days prior to the permanency hearing (see Family Ct Act§ 1089 [b], [c]). As set forth in our prior decision, however, the denial of visitation by FamilyCourt was " 'based on compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation would bedetrimental or harmful to the child's welfare' " (Matter of Victoria X., 34 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2006], lv denied 8NY3d 806 [2007], quoting Matter of Sullivan County Dept. of Social Servs. v Richard C.,260 AD2d 680, 682 [1999], lv dismissed 93 NY2d 958 [1999]; accord 51 AD3d at1088). Inasmuch as the circumstances justifying the original denial of visitation continue to persist, itcannot be said that Family Court erred in continuing the suspension of visitation or that petitioner failedto exercise reasonable efforts simply because it complied with the court-ordered suspension ofvisitation. Moreover, Family Court has the authority to approve or modify the proposedpermanency goal (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [d] [2] [i]) and, given the severe abusepetition that postdated the permanency hearing report, as well as evidence that respondent refused topermit mandated home inspection or sign releases of information, and rarely complied with therequirements that she meet with caseworkers and participate in mental health counseling sessions andother mandated services, the record contains a sound and substantial basis to support the court'smodification of the permanency goal here (see Matter of Haylee RR., 47 AD3d 1093, 1095 [2008]; Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552,554 [2007]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29AD3d 1003, 1004-1005 [2006]; Matter of Amanda C., 309 AD2d 744, 744 [2003]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.