| Matter of Laelani B. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01374 [59 AD3d 880] |
| February 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Laelani B. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Columbia County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Dawn C.et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Mitch Kessler, Cohoes, for Joe B., appellant. Megan Mercy, Columbia County Department of Social Services, Hudson (James A. Carlucciof counsel), for respondent. Marlene Moberly, Law Guardian, Freehold.
Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.),entered December 17, 2007, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondents' children to be permanentlyneglected, and terminated respondents' parental rights.
Respondents are the parents of Laelani B. (born in 2003) and Sasha B. (born in 2004). InDecember 2005, petitioner removed the children and placed them in a foster care home, wherethey have remained. After a hearing, Family Court determined that the children had beenneglected. Pursuant to a service plan established to strengthen the parent-child relationships,respondents agreed to, among other things, obtain substance abuse treatment and the mother[*2]agreed to attend mental health and domestic violencecounseling. In June 2007, petitioner commenced this permanent neglect proceeding againstrespondents and, after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, Family Court adjudged thatrespondents had permanently neglected the children and terminated their parental rights.Respondents appeal and we affirm.
Family Court properly determined that respondents permanently neglected their children(see Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g]; [4] [d]; [7]). In a permanent neglectproceeding, the threshold inquiry is whether petitioner made diligent efforts to encourage andstrengthen the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a];see also Matter of Melissa DD., 45AD3d 1219, 1220 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 701 [2008]; Matter of Destiny CC., 40 AD3d1167, 1168 [2007]; Matter ofThomas JJ., 20 AD3d 708, 709 [2005]). Here, petitioner established by clear andconvincing evidence that it had made such diligent efforts. Respondents were provided with acaseworker who referred them for numerous services, including substance abuse counseling andparenting, domestic violence and anger management classes. Petitioner's staff remained inregular contact with service providers, repeatedly rescheduled respondents' numerous missedappointments, arranged transportation, and followed up with both treatment providers andrespondents. Respondents also received assistance with housing, rent, food vouchers,transportation and weekly supervised visitation, including visitation while the mother wasincarcerated in 2006 after her unsuccessful discharge from drug treatment.
Additionally, Columbia County Mental Health provided the mother with mental healthcounseling, yet she missed more than one half of the scheduled biweekly sessions betweenOctober 2006 and November 2007. Service plan reviews were held at which respondents werereminded of the imperative that they timely address the reasons for the removal of the childrenby completing, among other things, substance abuse evaluations and treatment. During therelevant time, the children were provided with services to address their medical, specialeducational and therapeutic needs. We find that the evidence presented at the fact-findinghearing proved that petitioner made "affirmative, repeated and meaningful efforts to restore theparent-child relationship" (Matter ofAlycia P., 24 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2005]; see Matter of Isaiah F., 55 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2008]; Matter ofThomas JJ., 20 AD3d at 710).
With petitioner having demonstrated that it made the requisite diligent efforts, it wasrespondents' obligation to show that the conditions that led to the children's removal had beenaddressed and that they had a meaningful plan for the children's future (see Matter of IsaiahF., 55 AD3d at 1005; Matter ofJames X., 37 AD3d 1003, 1006 [2007]). To their credit, respondents remainedemployed, exercised most scheduled visitations, and completed some of the programs offered.Yet neither parent addressed his or her fundamental underlying substance abuse problem, and themother never adequately addressed her mental health needs. Thus, we reject respondents'contention that Family Court erred in finding that they failed to plan for the future of theirchildren, although physically and financially able to do so (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [a]).
Nor did Family Court abuse its discretion in terminating respondents' parental rights anddeclining to grant a suspended judgment in its dispositional order. We accord great deference tothe court's determination, given its ability to assess the demeanor and credibility of witnesses,and find ample record support for its dispositive conclusion that it was not in the best interests ofthe children to suspend judgment to give respondents yet another chance to demonstrate theirparental fitness and to plan for the future of the children (see Matter of Isaiah F., 55AD3d at [*3]1006; Matter of Melissa DD., 45 AD3d at1221; Matter of Joshua BB., 27AD3d 867, 869 [2006]; see also Family Ct Act § 631 [b]; Matter ofMichael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]). At the dispositional hearing, held nearly two yearsafter the removal of the children, neither respondent had completed substance abuse treatmentand, given respondents' persistent unwillingness to meaningfully engage in such services even inthe face of a termination proceeding, there was no reason to believe that they would do so duringany "brief grace period" (Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d at 311).
Finally, given the less stringent standard governing the admission of evidence at adispositional hearing (see Matter ofChelsea K., 15 AD3d 794, 794-795 [2005], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 869 [2005];compare Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [ii] with Family Ct Act § 1046[c]), we are not persuaded that the admission of the psychologist's report, over the mother'shearsay objection, constituted error.
Cardona, P.J., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.