| Matter of David O.C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09991 [57 AD3d 775] |
| December 16, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of David O.C. St. Vincent's Services, Inc., Respondent;Gwendolyn C., Appellant. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Marion C. Perry of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), attorney forthe child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on theground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of theFamily Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated May 1, 2007, which, after fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, andtransferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the New York City Commissioner ofSocial Services and St. Vincent's Services, Inc., for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the agency established by clear and convincing evidence thatshe permanently neglected her child by failing to plan for his future for a period of more than one yearfollowing the date he came into the agency's care (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7][c]). At a minimum, planning for the future of the child requires the parent to take steps to correct theconditions that led to the child's removal from the home (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d838, 840 [1986]; Matter of Tynell S., 43AD3d 1171, 1172 [2007]; Matter ofJennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006]). Here, although the mother enrolled in a drugrehabilitation program shortly after the child [*2]was placed in fostercare, she relapsed into drug use during the aftercare phase of the program, and never successfullycompleted it. The mother's relapse and failure to complete drug treatment demonstrate that she did notameliorate the primary problem that led to the child's placement, and thus failed to plan for his future(see Matter of "Female" C., 55 AD3d603 [2008]; Matter of Kevin J., 55AD3d 468 [2008]; Matter of Laura F.,48 AD3d 812 [2008]; Matter ofLeah Tanisha A.-N., 48 AD3d 801 [2008]; Matter of Leon G., 7 AD3d 524 [2004]; Matter of Dana Marie L.,296 AD2d 499 [2002]).
Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it would be in the best interests of the childto be freed for adoption by his foster mother, with whom he has lived for most of his life (see Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 AD3d469 [2008]; Matter of "Baby Boy" E.,42 AD3d 536 [2007]; Matter ofTyria W., 41 AD3d 859 [2007]; Matter of Jeremiah Kwimea T., 10 AD3d 691 [2004]; Matter ofDiana L., 299 AD2d 359 [2002]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.