| Matter of Toshea C.J. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04106 [62 AD3d 587] |
| May 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Toshea C.J. and Others, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Nicolie J., Appellant; Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families,Respondent. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, 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 on orabout March 6, 2007, which, inter alia, respectively found that respondent mother permanentlyneglected the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's argument that the agency's petitions were jurisdictionally defective for failingto specify the diligent efforts the agency made to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationship (Family Ct Act § 614 [1] [c]) was raised for the first time on appeal and istherefore unpreserved (see Matter ofGina Rachel L., 44 AD3d 367 [2007]). Were we to review this issue, we would find thatthe petitions sufficiently specified the agency's efforts, which included arranging for respondentto visit with the children, referring respondent for individual and family counseling and trainingin parenting skills, and encouraging respondent "to become consistent with both her planning forand engaging in meaningful visits with" the children.
The court's finding that the agency fulfilled its statutory duty to make diligent efforts toencourage and strengthen the parental relationship was supported by clear and convincingevidence that the agency sought respondent's cooperation in developing a plan tailored torespondent's needs, and, inter alia, scheduled visitation, attempted to assist her in improving thequality of the visits, and referred her to parenting skills classes and counseling programs(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d368 [1984]). Respondent testified that the agency provided her with no referrals. However, hercaseworker testified that the agency tried to make referrals and respondent refused to acceptthem. The court's determination that the caseworker's testimony was credible and respondent'sincredible is entitled to deference (seeMatter of Amin [*2]Enrique M., 52 AD3d 316 [2008]).Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Acosta and Richter, JJ.