| Matter of Kaytlin TT. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02516 [61 AD3d 1085] |
| April 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Kaytlin TT., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Betty SS., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) (And Two Other Related Proceedings.) |
—[*1] Ingrid Olsen-Tjensvold, Cortland County Department of Social Services, Cortland, forrespondent. Randolph V. Kruman, Law Guardian, Cortland.
Lahtinen, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.),entered January 4, 2008, which granted petitioner's applications, in three proceedings pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate respondent's children to be permanentlyneglected, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the mother of three daughters, Kaytlin TT., Anastasia TT. and Courtney SS.(born in 2001, 2004 and 2005, respectively). In July 2005, the two oldest children were placed infoster care (the youngest had not yet been born) based upon preliminary findings of neglect thatincluded, among other things, that respondent's home was unsanitary and unsafe, Kaytlin hadhead sores from untreated lice, Anastasia had a chest infection that respondent did [*2]not adequately treat, respondent had engaged in self-mutilation, andrespondent had consumed alcohol to the point of passing out on the lawn while her children werehome. Respondent was also 26 weeks pregnant at the time and had not sought proper prenatalcare. Eventually, a consent order in October 2005 resulted in a suspended judgment and thechildren returned to respondent, but she was directed to comply with various conditionsincluding, among others, to undergo substance abuse and mental health counseling, participate ina domestic violence program, complete parenting classes and refrain from residing with anypersons having a history of neglecting or otherwise harming children.
Another petition was filed in March 2006 alleging that Anastasia was an abused child (shehad a fractured leg with no reasonable explanation) and that all three children were neglected.The three children were placed in a foster home at that time, and Family Court found, in an orderentered in April 2006, that Anastasia was abused and that all three children were neglected. Inthat order, Family Court directed respondent to comply with various terms and conditions.Petitioner also successfully established that respondent had willfully violated the terms of theearlier suspended judgment.
In June 2007, petitioner commenced these three proceedings seeking to terminaterespondent's parental rights based upon permanent neglect. After a fact-finding hearing, FamilyCourt found that the children were permanently neglected and, following a dispositional hearing,respondent's parental rights were terminated, freeing the children for adoption. Respondentappeals.
The threshold issue in a permanent neglect proceeding is whether the agency exerciseddiligent efforts to develop and encourage the parent-child relationship (see Matter of StarLeslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Kaitlyn R., 279 AD2d 912, 913[2001]). If such efforts are established, the analysis shifts to whether the parent nonethelessfailed to maintain contact with or participate in plans for the child's future for the statutorilyestablished period (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of GregoryB., 74 NY2d 77, 87 [1989]; Matterof Antonio EE. v Schoharie County Dept. of Social Servs., 38 AD3d 944, 945 [2007],lv denied 8 NY3d 813 [2007]). Here, when the children returned to petitioner's carefollowing respondent's unsuccessful parenting under the suspended judgment, they exhibited avariety of serious problems including, among others, Anastasia's unexplained fractured leg,Kaytlin's decayed and abscessed teeth, and Courtney's misshaped skull (flat in the back andbulging on one side) from being left in her crib for protracted periods. These acute problemsresulted in the need for a series of conditions and services for respondent. Contrary torespondent's contention, the record supports Family Court's conclusion that petitioner diligentlyworked to help respondent comply with those conditions and provided a host of services aimedat reuniting the family. Her caseworker testified that she had maintained regular (often daily)contact with respondent, providing preventive services and assisting in numerous referrals toprograms for substance abuse, mental health counseling and domestic violence issues. Petitionerfurther coordinated regular visitation and offered parenting education.
Respondent asserts that petitioner's efforts were insufficient because the agency did notprocure housing and a full-time job for her. We are unpersuaded. Her two convictions forwelfare fraud (i.e., offering a false instrument for filing based on providing false information onapplications for public assistance) hindered efforts to obtain public assistance and low-incomehousing for her. Her employment history reflects an inability to remain at a job for anymeaningful period of time. While petitioner attempted to assist respondent in these areas, [*3]respondent ultimately has to take responsibility for the fact that herown actions resulted in her inability to maintain stable housing and employment.
The record amply supports Family Court's determination that respondent failed to plan forthe children's future. Although she did participate in some classes, she did not adequatelyaddress her substance abuse and mental health issues, which were two of her primary problems.She failed to complete or participate in services made available to her that were aimed ataddressing these issues. Moreover, she resided with individuals whose backgrounds includedinvolvement with child protective services as a result of mistreating children. Also, despite beingurged by her caseworker not to associate with a man with a history of child neglect, respondentmarried such individual.
Respondent's contention that Family Court misstated facts and relied upon evidence that wasnot part of the hearing has been considered and found to be unavailing. The record amplysupports Family Court's determination. Respondent does not challenge on appeal the dispositionand, in any event, Family Court's dispositional order clearly provides for the best interests of thechildren, which is the sole criteria at such stage of the proceeding (see Matter of BrandonOO., 302 AD2d 807, 807 [2003]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, withoutcosts.