| Matter of Malen Sansa V. (Nancy J.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00863 [70 AD3d 707] |
| February 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Malen Sansa V., an Infant. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Nancy J. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Briana Augustina V., Also Known as Ayellen Alexa V., an Infant. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Nancy J. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.) Inthe Matter of Lucas V., an Infant. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Nancy J. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Hennessey & DeNatale, Shirley, N.Y. (Susan A. DeNatale of counsel), for appellant GabrielV. Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet and Steven Nacht ofcounsel), for respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, N.Y. (Diane B. Groom of counsel), attorney for thechildren.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b and Family Court Actarticle 6 to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother and thefather separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, (1) from so much of a fact-findingorder of the [*2]Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), datedAugust 14, 2008, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that they each had permanently neglectedthe subject children, and (2) from so much of an order of disposition of the same court datedNovember 17, 2008, as, after a dispositional hearing, terminated each of their parental rights tothe subject children and transferred the custody and guardianship of the subject children to theSuffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the appeals from the fact-finding order are dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeals from the order of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence (see Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [7] [a]), that for a period of at least one year following placement of thesubject children with an authorized agency, both the mother and the father failed to substantiallyand continuously plan for the future of the children, although physically and financially able todo so, notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationships (see Matter of JadaTa-Toneyia L., 66 AD3d 901, 902 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 717 [2010]; Matter of Jordan F., 62 AD3d 698[2009]; Matter of Shanell K.M., 59AD3d 201, 201-202 [2009]). The testimony at the fact-finding hearing established that for aperiod of 16 months following the children's placement in foster care, the mother and the fatherfailed to complete substance abuse treatment programs or psychotherapy, despite the agency'scounseling and referrals for treatment. Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that themother and the father permanently neglected the children.
The Family Court also properly determined that the best interests of the children would beserved by terminating the mother's and the father's parental rights and freeing the children foradoption (see Matter of Jada Ta-Toneyia L., 66 AD3d at 902; Matter of JordanF., 62 AD3d at 699; Matter ofNoelia T., 61 AD3d 983 [2009]). The testimony established that the children have beenliving together in the same foster care home for four years, that the older two children, ages 15and 14 years old, want to be adopted, and that the foster parents want to adopt all of the children.Dillon, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.