Matter of Irene C. (Reina M.)
2009 NY Slip Op 08878 [68 AD3d 416]
December 1, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010


In the Matter of Irene C., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Reina M., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau,Respondent.

[*1]Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.

Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Marion C. Perry of counsel), for respondent.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about March31, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a finding of permanentneglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and committedcustody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of theAdministration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed,without costs.

Respondent's contention that the petition was defective in that it did not specify the stepstaken by the agency to strengthen the parent-child relationship (Family Ct Act § 614 [1][c]), is unpreserved as respondent never moved to dismiss the petition on such grounds (see e.g. Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44AD3d 367 [2007]). Were we to review it, we would find that the allegations were more thansufficient to put respondent on notice of the nature of the proceedings against her.

Furthermore, the evidence at the hearing was clear and convincing with respect to both theagency's diligent efforts and respondent's failure to plan for her daughter. The evidence showedthat the agency made diligent efforts at reunification through referral of respondent toparenting-skills workshops, domestic violence programs, counseling programs, and arrangingscheduled visitations (see Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d at 368). Despite these efforts,respondent [*2]continued to deny responsibility for her pastneglect of her daughter and lacked insight into her duties as a parent (see Matter of S.Children, 210 AD2d 175 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 807 [1995]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Roman, 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.