| Matter of Andrea B. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07404 [66 AD3d 770] |
| October 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Andrea B., an Infant. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Sharenia B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forrespondent. Domenik Veraldi Jr., Islandia, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rightson the ground of abandonment and permanent neglect, the mother appeals from (1) a fact-findingorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated December 19, 2007, which, aftera fact-finding hearing, found that she abandoned and permanently neglected her child, and (2) anorder of disposition of the same court dated May 6, 2008, which, upon the fact-finding order andafter a dispositional hearing, terminated her parental rights on the grounds of abandonment andpermanent neglect and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services for the purposes of adoption.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that there was clear and convincing proof that themother abandoned the subject child during the six-month period preceding the filing of thepetition (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]; Matter of Robert A.G., 62 AD3d701 [2009]; Matter of SaquanL.E., 19 AD3d 418, 419 [2005]; Matter of Jeremiah Kwimea T., 10 AD3d 691 [2004]). The FamilyCourt's finding of permanent neglect within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b(7) was also supported by clear and convincing evidence. In particular, the Family Court foundthat the agency exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-childrelationship and that, inter alia, the mother failed to plan for the child's future for a period of overone year after the child was removed from her custody based on her failure to attend drugtreatment for such period of time (seeMatter of Noelia T., 61 AD3d 983 [2009]; Matter [*2]of Leah Tanisha A.-N., 48AD3d 801 [2008]; Matter of LeonG., 7 AD3d 524 [2004]). Furthermore, the Family Court properly concluded, after adispositional hearing, that it was in the child's best interest to terminate the mother's parentalrights (see Matter of Alim LishenLaquan R., 63 AD3d 947 [2009]; Matter of Chyanne H., 62 AD3d 876 [2009]; Matter of NoeliaT., 61 AD3d at 984; see also Matterof Jessica Leslie A., 61 AD3d 679 [2009]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not err in denying her request fornew counsel under the circumstances herein (see Matter of Jennifer O., 256 AD2d 1197[1998]; Matter of William D., 198 AD2d 40 [1993]; see also Matter of AshleyD., 268 AD2d 803, 805 [2000]). Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in closing the courtroom to the public during part of the fact-finding hearing based on,inter alia, prior disruptions of the proceedings by a family member (see 22 NYCRR205.4; see also Family Ct Act § 1043). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Lott,JJ., concur.