Matter of Jaiheem M.S.
2009 NY Slip Op 04007 [62 AD3d 569]
May 21, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 1, 2009


In the Matter of Jaiheem M.S. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Sharon H., Appellant; Children's Aid Society,Respondent.

[*1]Michael S. Bromberg, Sag Harbor, for appellant.

Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered January30, 2008, which terminated respondent mother's parental rights to her two sons after afact-finding determination that she had permanently neglected them, and transferred custody topetitioner and the New York City Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidencethat respondent failed to plan for her children's future (Social Services Law § 384-b [7];see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136 [1984]) by demonstrating the ability toaddress adequately their medical and emotional needs (see Matter of Antonia Mykala P., 52 AD3d 224, 225 [2008], lvdenied 11 NY3d 705 [2008]), or availing herself of parenting classes addressed to thespecial needs of one of them (see Matterof Elizabeth Amanda T., 52 AD3d 376 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 714 [2008]).The fact that she completed some of the programs does not indicate, under these circumstances,that she properly planned for her children's return (see Matter of Wilfredo A.M., 56 AD3d 338 [2008]; Matter of Violeta P., 45 AD3d352 [2007]).

A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that termination of parentalrights to facilitate the adoptive process is in the best interests of both of these children (seeStar Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148). Jaiheem is in a stable and caring environmentprovided by foster parents with whom he has lived his entire life, while Shavar is in the home offoster parents with whom he has lived since 2006 and who have addressed his special needs (Matter of Wilfredo A.M., 56 AD3d338 [2008], supra; Matterof Angel P., 44 AD3d 448 [2007]). Both sets of foster parents wish to adopt, and thereis every indication that they will continue to facilitate [*2]visitsbetween the children after their adoptions (see Matter of Victoria Marie P., 57 AD3d 282, 283 [2008]).Concur—McGuire, J.P., Acosta, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.