| Matter of Victoria Marie P. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09702 [57 AD3d 282] |
| December 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Victoria Marie P., a Child Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Andrew S.P. et al., Appellants; Seamen's Society for Children andFamilies, Respondent. (And Another Action.) |
—[*1] Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for Dorothy P., appellant. John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel), Law Guardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on orabout July 11, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondents permanentlyneglected their children Victoria P., Claudette P., and Vincent P., terminated their parental rightswith respect to Victoria P. and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioneragency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the City of New York for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence thatpetitioner agency discharged its duty to undertake "diligent efforts" to strengthen the parentalrelationship and that, these efforts notwithstanding, respondents failed to plan for the children'sfuture (Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d136 [1984]). The agency scheduled weekly visits with the children until visitation was suspendedby the court following respondents' disruptive behavior (see Matter of Emma L., 35 AD3d 250, 251 [2006], lv dismissedin part and denied in part 8 NY3d 904 [2007]). It referred respondents for substance abusetreatment, a parenting skills program, domestic violence programs, an anger managementprogram for respondent father, and an agency housing specialist, and provided a birth parentadvocate who assisted them in understanding their role in achieving the return of the children (see Matter of Jah'lil Dale EmanuelMcC., 44 AD3d 547 [2007]). Respondents frequently were late for visits or canceledthem altogether and, when they attended, behaved disruptively, which upset [*2]the children and resulted in a court-ordered suspension of the visits.Further, they failed to comply with court orders, most notably by delaying or refusing to signconsent forms for the release of records from drug treatment programs, switching drug programswithout completing any one program by the time the termination petition was filed, and failing tosubmit to court-ordered hair-follicle drug tests.
Contrary to respondent mother's contentions, she was not prejudiced by the delay incompletion of the proceedings, which was due in large part to respondents' decisions to changecounsel, and the court did not err in proceeding with summations after the mother discharged thelast in a series of attorneys assigned to represent her (see Emma L., 35 AD3d at 252).
The court properly admitted case records, which had been reviewed by all counsel, upon theconsent of the mother's counsel (see Matter of Jaquone Emiel B., 288 AD2d 57, 58[2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 608 [2002]).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that the termination of parentalrights, to facilitate the adoptive process, is in Victoria's best interests (see Star Leslie W.,63 NY2d at 147-148). Victoria is thriving in the loving and stable environment provided by thefoster family; she has lived with the family for nearly her entire life and has almost norelationship with respondents (seeMatter of Olivia F., 34 AD3d 234 [2006]; Matter of Galeann F., 11 AD3d 255 [2004], lv denied 4NY3d 703 [2005]). There is every indication that the foster parents will continue to facilitatevisitation among the siblings after Victoria's adoption. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe,Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.