| Matter of Aphrodite Kristina Maria S. (Katrina W.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09234 [68 AD3d 879] |
| December 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Aphrodite Kristina Maria S., an Infant. SaintDominic's Home et al., Respondents; Katrina W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.1.) In the Matter of Maridas Antonia S., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services et al.,Respondents; Katrina W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter ofAnthony Jesus S., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; KatrinaW., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Joseph Jesus David S.,Also Known as Joseph A., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents;Katrina W., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.) |
—[*1] Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for petitioner-respondentSaint Dominic's Home. Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Zoë E. Jasper of counsel),for petitioner-respondent Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc. Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., attorney for the child Aphrodite Kristina Maria S. Todd D. Kadish, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children Maridas Antonia S., AnthonyJesus S., and Joseph Jesus David S., also known as Joseph A.
In four related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to[*2]terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect,the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of a resettled order of fact-findingand disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), dated January 25, 2008, as, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she had permanently neglected the childAphrodite Kristina Maria S., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship andcustody of the subject child to Saint Dominic's Home and the Commissioner of theAdministration for Children's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, (2)so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court dated February 22, 2008,as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she had permanently neglected thechild Maridas Antonia S., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship andcustody of the subject child to Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc., and theCommissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York for thepurpose of adoption, and (3) so much of two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the samecourt, both dated March 3, 2008 (one as to each of the subject children Anthony Jesus S. andJoseph Jesus David S., also known as Joseph A.), as, after fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, found that she had permanently neglected the subject children and transferredguardianship and custody of them to Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan New York, Inc.,and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York forthe purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the resettled order of fact-finding and disposition and the orders of fact-findingand disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearingestablished, by the requisite clear and convincing standard of proof, that she permanentlyneglected her children by continuing to abuse illegal drugs following their removal from hercustody and following her release from prison and by failing to plan for their future (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b; Matter of Sarah Jean R., 290 AD2d 511, 512[2002]). Notwithstanding the diligent efforts of Lutheran Social Services of Metropolitan NewYork, Inc., to help reunite the family, the mother refused to cooperate with rehabilitationprograms, thereby violating a condition of parole and causing her reincarceration for almost theentirety of the subject period. By her actions, the mother failed to plan for her children's return(see Matter of Laura F., 48 AD3d812 [2008]).
The mother's contention that the court erred in admitting certain agency case records intoevidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Eugene L., 22 AD3d 348, 349 [2005]; Matter of"Baby Girl" Q., 14 AD3d 392, 393 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.