| Matter of Alyssa M. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08271 [55 AD3d 505] |
| October 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Alyssa M. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Carlos A. et al., Appellants; Saint Dominic's Home,Respondent. |
—[*1] Howard M. Simms, New York, for Milagros M., appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Waksberg of counsel), andProskauer Rose, LLP, New York (Stefanie M. Ramirez of counsel), Law Guardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), entered on orabout September 8, 2006, which, inter alia, upon a finding that respondent mother permanentlyneglected the subject children and that respondent father had been given notice of theproceedings and an opportunity to be heard at the dispositional hearing, terminated the mother'sparental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency andthe Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.
We note respondent mother does not challenge the finding of neglect. Moreover, the agencymade diligent efforts, including developing a realistic plan for the mother, with which she failedto comply.
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother's parentalrights was in the children's best interests, particularly given the children's expressed preferencenot to live with their biological parents (see Matter of Elizabeth Amanda T., 44 AD3d507 [2007]). The record affords no basis to conclude that the children's best interests would havebeen better served by a suspended judgment rather than termination of parental rights (seeMatter of Jazminn O'Dell P., 39 AD3d 235 [2007]; Matter of Adante A., 38 AD3d243 [2007]; Matter of Donelle Thomas M., 4 AD3d 137 [2004]), and the court'sdetermination was appropriate even if adoption would result in the separation of the childrenfrom each other and their half-siblings (see Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 AD3d 285 [2007],lv denied 9 NY3d 812 [2007]).
The rights of the father, as a "notice father," were limited to notice of the proceeding and[*2]an opportunity to be heard concerning the children's bestinterests (Social Services Law § 384-c; see also Domestic Relations Law §111), and contrary to the father's contentions, he had ample opportunity to be heard on the issue.The record establishes that the father testified on several occasions during the proceedings,presented evidence as to the best interests of the children at the dispositional hearing, and that hisattorney was permitted to participate during that hearing, including by making objections andcross-examining witnesses (see e.g. Matter of Camperlengo v Barell, 78 NY2d 674, 681[1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Nardelli, Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.