| Matter of Wilfredo A.M. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09160 [56 AD3d 338] |
| November 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Wilfredo A.M., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Myrna M.P., Appellant; MercyFirst, Respondent. |
—[*1] Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Harris of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on orabout October 3, 2006, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondentmother's parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the childto petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Despite the diligent efforts of the agency to encourage andstrengthen the parental relationship, which included arranging frequent visitation with the childand scheduling service plan reviews, respondent failed to adequately address the problems thatled to the removal of her son (see Matterof Tashona Sharmaine A., 24 AD3d 135 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]).Respondent's attendance at individual therapy, anger management counseling andparenting-skills classes does not require a finding that she planned for her son's return (seeMatter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 841-842 [1986]; Matter of Violeta P., 45 AD3d 352 [2007]). Furthermore, caserecords demonstrate that respondent continued to use corporal punishment inappropriately on thesubject child (see Matter of JoquanJomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d 868 [2007]). Nor is the finding of permanent neglectundermined by the evidence that the agency took steps to arrange for a trial discharge of the childto respondent, which never materialized due to respondent's violent behavior (see Matter ofStar Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 145-146 [1984]).
The evidence at the dispositional hearing was preponderant that the best interests of the childwould be served by terminating respondent's parental rights so as to facilitate the child's adoptionby his foster mother with whom he has lived almost his entire life and who tended to his specialneeds (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d [*2]at147-148; Matter of Olivia F., 34AD3d 234 [2006]). The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.