| Matter of Shanell K.M. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00985 [59 AD3d 201] |
| February 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Shanell K.M., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Elizabeth V., Appellant; Family Support Systems Unlimited, Inc., Respondent, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, for Family Support Systems Unlimited, Inc., respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about October 15,2007, which terminated respondent-appellant's parental rights to her daughter on the ground ofpermanent neglect, and committed custody of the child to petitioner and the Commissioner of theAdministration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's finding on permanent neglect was correct within the meaning of Social ServicesLaw § 384-b. Petitioner scheduled regular visitation, made appropriate referrals toprograms designed to address appellant's substance abuse problems and to improve her parentingskills, and repeatedly reminded her of the necessity of complying with the terms of her serviceplan and the consequences of failing to do so. This demonstrated, by clear and convincingevidence, petitioner's diligent efforts, tailored to appellant's individual situation, to remedy theobstacles barring family reunification and thereby strengthen the relationship between appellantand her daughter (see § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d368, 373 [1984]; Matter of Star A., 55 NY2d 560, 564 [1982]).
The preponderance of the evidence also established that despite such diligent efforts,appellant failed, during the relevant statutory period, to sufficiently maintain contact with andplan for the return of the child (see § 384-b [7] [a]). Appellant never completedparenting skills classes or a drug treatment program on an inpatient or outpatient basis, nor didshe undergo counseling, and she actually visited with the child while under the influence ofdrugs. This constituted failure to comply with the terms of the service plan petitioner hadprepared for her (see Matter of SeanLaMonte Vonta M., 54 AD3d 635 [2008]; Matter of Angel P., 44 AD3d 448[*2][2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, Acostaand DeGrasse, JJ.