| Matter of Pedro C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08248 [55 AD3d 475] |
| October 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Pedro C., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Josephine Patricia B. et al., Appellants; Pius XII Youth and Family Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for Pedro Luis C., appellant. John R. Eyerman, P.C., New York (Geoffrey P. Berman of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or aboutSeptember 13, 2006, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondents'parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child topetitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The record demonstrates that the agency made diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between respondents and the child,including providing respondent mother with referrals for psychiatric evaluations and parentingskills training, conducting random drug and alcohol screenings and scheduling regular visitation(see Matter of Lady Justice I., 50 AD3d 425 [2008]; Social Services Law § 384-b[7] [f]). Despite these diligent efforts, the mother continued to deny her alcohol problem andneed for psychiatric medicine, and otherwise failed to meaningfully address the problems that ledto the child's placement (see Matter of Elizabeth Amanda T. , 52 AD3d 376 [2008];Matter of Kimberly C., 37 AD3d 192 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007]).Regarding respondent father, upon his filing of a paternity petition, the agency sent him avisitation schedule that accommodated his work schedule (see Matter of Ailayah ShawnequeL., 40 AD3d 1097 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 806 [2007]). However, the fathervisited the child sporadically, and, with the exception of one occasion, did so in the company ofthe mother, who dominated these visits. The father's failure to comply with the visitationschedule evinced a lack of interest in and dedication to achieving a productive relationship withhis son (see Matter of Shah Ronnie J., 298 AD2d 129 [2002]).
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that termination of respondents' parental[*2]rights was in the child's best interests. The child was in anurturing environment, where he attended school and therapy, and his special needs were tendedto by his foster mother, who was also his maternal aunt (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment(see Matter of Maryline A., 22 AD3d 227 [2005]).
We have considered respondents' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Williams, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.