| Matter of Evelyse Luz S. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09896 [57 AD3d 329] |
| December 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Evelyse Luz S., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Evelyn G., Appellant; St. Dominic's Home, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Waksberg of counsel), andProskauer Rose LLP, New York (Andy S. Oh of counsel), Law Guardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on orabout October 17, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding of permanent neglect, terminatedrespondent's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of thechild to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Servicesfor the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While the agency was not required to make reasonable efforts to return the child to her homebecause respondent's parental rights to two of her other children had been involuntarilyterminated (see Family Ct Act § 1039-b [a], [b] [6]), it established by clear andconvincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen respondent'srelationship with the child and that despite these efforts respondent failed to plan for the child'sfuture (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d368 [1984]). The agency's service plan required respondent to visit with the child regularly, tocomplete a drug treatment program and remain sober, and to keep the agency apprised of herwhereabouts. Respondent's attendance at the visits arranged by the agency was inconsistent, shefailed to complete a drug program, and she failed to remain in contact with the agency, whichwas able to locate her eventually through its own efforts.
The finding that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the child's best interests wassupported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the child has been with the fostermother since infancy and has bonded with her and her other children and that the foster motherwishes to adopt the child (see Matter ofElizabeth Amanda T., 44 AD3d 507 [2007]; Matter of Taaliyah Simone S.D., 28 AD3d 371 [2006]).[*2]
We have considered respondent's remaining argumentsand find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Buckley, Moskowitz andRenwick, JJ.