| Matter of Giovanni K. (Dawn K.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09874 [68 AD3d 1766] |
| December 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Giovanni K., an Infant. Oneida CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Dawn K., Appellant. |
—[*1] John A. Herbowy, Utica, for petitioner-respondent. William L. Koslosky, Law Guardian, Utica, for Giovanni K.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Randal B. Caldwell, J.), enteredDecember 10, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order,among other things, terminated respondent's parental rights.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order revoking a suspended judgmentpursuant to Family Court Act § 633 and terminating her parental rights with respect to herson who is the subject of this proceeding. Contrary to the mother's contention, petitionerestablished by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother violated the terms and conditionsof the suspended judgment (see Matterof Dennis A., 64 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2009]), and that termination of her parental rightswas in the child's best interests (seeMatter of Aaron S., 15 AD3d 585 [2005]; Matter of Jillian D., 307 AD2d 311,312 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 505 [2003]). "More than mere participation in theprograms offered by petitioner is required. Rather, [a]t a minimum, a parent is required toaddress and overcome the specific personal and familial problems which initially endangered orproved harmful to the child[ ], and which may in the future endanger or possibly harm the child[]" (Matter of Bert M., 50 AD3d1509, 1510 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 704 [2008] [internal quotation marksomitted]). "Although the mother participated in the services offered by petitioner, she did notsuccessfully address or gain insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child andcontinued to prevent the child's safe return" (Matter of Giovanni K., 62 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2009], lv denied12 NY3d 715 [2009]). The remaining contentions of the mother, i.e., that petitioner failed toprovide services as required under the suspended judgment and that her due process rights wereviolated, are unpreserved for our review and in any event are without merit (see Bert M.,50 AD3d at 1510; Matter of Paige vPaige, 50 AD3d 1542 [2008]; Matter of Jessica J., 44 AD3d 1132, 1134 [2007]; Matter of Adams H., 28 AD3d213, 214 [2006]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey and Carni, JJ.