| Matter of Chyanne H. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04061 [62 AD3d 876] |
| May 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Chyanne H. Orange County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Mae N. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Gerald H.Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Mae N. et al., Appellants.(Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Michael K. Orange County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Mae N. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant Mae N. David L. Darwin, County Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Linda Pierson DaSilva of counsel), forrespondent. Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b and FamilyCourt Act article 6 to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the fatherand the mother separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from (1) so much of afact-finding order of the Family Court, Orange County (Currier-Woods, J.), dated February 22,2008, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the father and the mother, respectively, hadneglected the subject children, and (2) so much of an order of disposition of the same court datedMarch 19, 2008, as, after a dispositional hearing, terminated their respective parental rights tothe subject children and transferred the custody and guardianship of the subject children to theOrange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the appeals from the fact-finding order are dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeals from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence (see Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [7] [a]), that for a period of one year following the placement of the subjectchildren with an authorized agency, the parents failed to substantially and continuously plan forthe future of the children, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding thepetitioner's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationships (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Specifically, for more than 15 out of 22 monthsfollowing the placement of the children into care, the mother and the father failed to completetheir respective treatment programs, including mental health treatment, parenting classes, andfamily therapy, and to obtain suitable housing, despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to aidthem. In light of the fact that neither parent had made any plan for the future of the children, theFamily Court properly determined that the best interests of the children would be served byterminating the parents' respective rights and freeing the children for adoption (see Matter of Shanell K.M., 59 AD3d201 [2009]; Matter of AntwoneLee S., 49 AD3d 276 [2008]; Matter of Wesley F., 190 AD2d 576 [1993];Matter of Gregory Michael M., 167 AD2d 469, 470-471 [1990]; Matter of June Y.,128 AD2d 538 [1987]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.