| Matter of Megan R.W. (Connie Lynn M.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00268 [69 AD3d 737] |
| January 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Megan R.W., Also Known as Megan W., anInfant. Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York et al., Respondents; ConnieLynn M., Also Known as Connie M. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant John W. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent LittleFlower Children and Family Services of New York. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney forthe child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, and the father separatelyappeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated October 1, 2008, as, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that they each permanently neglected the subjectchild, terminated their respective parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of thesubject child to Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York and the Commissionerof the Administration for Chidren's Services of the City of New York for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchild by continuing to use illegal drugs for three years following the removal of the subject childand failing to cooperate with rehabilitation programs (see Social Services Law §384-b; Matter of Fatima G., 64AD3d 653 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Matter of Fatima G., 64 AD3d652 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 711 [2009]; Matter of Sarah Jean R., 290AD2d 511 [2002]). Contrary to the mother's contention, although she belatedly [*2]demonstrated an effort to comply with the presentment agency'srequirements, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to suspendjudgment (see Matter of ZioniahMoziah M., 64 AD3d 781 [2009]; Matter of Arnold M., 12 AD3d 677, 678 [2004]).
Moreover, contrary to the father's contention, the presentment agency established that itmade diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen his relationship with the subject child (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b [7]; cf. Matter of Sykia Monique G., 208 AD2d535, 537 [1994]). Those efforts included, inter alia, facilitating visitation when it was in thechild's best interest, referring the father for alcohol treatment and domestic violence counseling,and attempting to locate additional treatment programs (see Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 555 [2007]). Despite theseefforts, the father failed to plan for the child's future by visiting the child regularly andcooperating with rehabilitation programs (see Matter of Ray A., 30 AD3d 410 [2006]; Matter of ArnoldM., 12 AD3d at 679).
Accordingly, in light of the close bond the child has developed with her foster family, whohas cared for her for almost half of her life, the Family Court's determination that termination ofthe mother's and father's parental rights was in the child's best interest is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (seeMatter of Chase F., 66 AD3d 676 [2009], lv denied — NY3d —, 2009 NYSlip Op 91569 [2009]; Matter of Sarah Jean R., 290 AD2d 511, 512 [2002]). Rivera,J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.