| Matter of Kayshawn Raheim E. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08487 [56 AD3d 471] |
| November 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kayshawn Raheim E., Also Known as KayshawnE., Also Known as Kayshawn J. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Tonisha Renee J.,Also Known as Tanisha Renea J., Also Known as Tonisha J., Also Known as Tanisha J.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Unstanding Joshawn G., Also Known asJoushawn J. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Tonisha Renee J., Also Known asTanisha Renea J., Also Known as Tonisha J., Also Known as Tanisha J., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) In the Matter of Domonique Daquan E., Also Known as Domonique E., Also Known asDomonique J. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Tonisha Renee J., Also Known asTanisha Renea J., Also Known as Tonisha J., Also Known as Tanisha J., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 3.) In the Matter of Shatica Bretnea Versialee G., Also Known as Shatica G., Also Known asShatica J. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Tonisha Renee J., Also Known asTanisha Renea J., Also Known as Tonisha J., Also Known as Tanisha J., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 4.) |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent SCOFamily of Services. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Mitchell Katz of counsel), attorney forthe children.
In four related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of four orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the FamilyCourt, Kings County (Elkins, J.), all dated April 17, 2007, as, after fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, inter alia, found that she had permanently neglected the children, terminated herparental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the children to SCO Family ofServices and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition concerning the children KayshawnRaheim and Domonique Daquan are modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting therespective provisions thereof terminating the mother's parental rights with respect to each ofthose children and transferring custody and guardianship of each of those children to SCOFamily of Services and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for thepurpose of adoption; as so modified, those two orders of fact finding and disposition are affirmedinsofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the findings of permanent neglectremain in effect as to each of those children, and the proceedings concerning each of thosechildren are remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for dispositional hearings in accordanceherewith; and it is further,[*2]
Ordered that the orders of fact finding and dispositionconcerning the children Shatica Bretnea Versialee and Unstanding Joshawn are affirmed insofaras appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the presentment agency established that it made diligentefforts to assist her in maintaining contact with her children and planning for their future (seeMatter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d368, 383 [1984]). These efforts included facilitating visitation, referring the mother to family andindividual counseling, and advising her that she must attend the visitation and therapy sessions(see Matter of Anna Marie G., 29AD3d 992 [2006]; Matter of JoshuaR., 2 AD3d 528 [2003]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to maintain contactwith the children and to plan for their future (see Matter of Leah Tanisha A.-N., 48 AD3d 801 [2008]; Matter of Deajah Shabri T., 44 AD3d1060 [2007]).
Following findings of permanent neglect as to each of the children, the Family Courtproperly determined that the termination of the mother's parental rights as to Shatica BretneaVersialee and Unstanding Joshawn, thus freeing them for adoption, was in their best interests(see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2006]). However, onthe basis of new facts and allegations with regard to Kayshawn Raheim and Domonique Daquan,which this Court may properly consider (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 318[1992]; Matter of Antonette Alasha E.,8 AD3d 375 [2004]), including, inter alia, that the proposed adoptive mother died, noadoptive resources have been located for them, they are over 14 years of age, and they haveexpressed a desire to be with their mother, it is not clear that the termination of the mother'sparental rights is in their best interests (see Matter of Londel Chavis C., 41 AD3d 843 [2007]; Matter of Emma L., 35 AD3d 250[2006]; Matter of Eugene L., 22AD3d 348 [2005]). Accordingly, the proceedings concerning Kayshawn Raheim andDomonique Daquan must be remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for new dispositionalhearings to determine the best interests of each of those children (see Matter of Tony H., 28 AD3d379 [2006]; Matter of Marc DavidD., 20 AD3d 565 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.