| Matter of Ciara Lee C. (Lourdes R.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07952 [67 AD3d 437] |
| November 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Ciara Lee C., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Lourdes R., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondents. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Collela of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about November 5,2008, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate the court's prior order entered on orabout August 4, 2008, upon respondent's default, which, upon finding that respondentpermanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights and transferred custodyand guardianship of the child to the petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
Respondent's vacatur motion was properly denied on the ground that she failed todemonstrate a reasonable excuse for her belated appearance when she was aware of the date forthe fact-finding and dispositional hearing almost three months earlier, took no steps to ascertainthe time she was required to appear in court, and failed to notify the court or her attorney that shewas going to her methadone program before she was due in court and that she was delayed. Themotion was properly denied on the additional ground that respondent failed to demonstrate ameritorious defense to the neglect petition in that she provided no evidence that she wasdrug-free almost four years after her child was removed due to her drug use (see Matter ofTanya Alexis G., 273 AD2d 19 [2000]).
Clear and convincing evidence established that the agency satisfied its statutory obligation tomake diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by providingappropriate referrals to various programs, scheduling visitation, and encouraging respondent tobecome drug-free; and that respondent failed to plan for her child's future by failing to completea drug treatment program after almost four years.
With respect to the termination of her parental rights, respondent failed to present evidencethat it was in her child's best interests to be removed from the only home she has known almostsince birth, where the record indicates the child is safe, secure and loved. Since [*2]her foster mother has expressed a desire to adopt the child, it is notin the child's best interests to wait until respondent makes sufficient progress in addressing herdrug problem (see Matter of MykleAndrew P., 55 AD3d 305 [2008]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Buckley, Catterson,Acosta and Freedman, JJ.