| Matter of Raquel N. (Evelyn O.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01701 [71 AD3d 418] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Raquel N. and Others, Infants. Evelyn O. et al.,Appellants; McMahon Services for Children, Respondent. |
—[*1] Elisa Barnes, New York, for Jose A., appellant. Joseph T. Gatti, New York, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or aboutOctober 1, 2008, which, upon fact-findings of permanent neglect as against respondent motherand abandonment as against respondent father, terminated respondents' parental rights to thesubject children and committed the children's guardianship and custody to petitioner agency andthe Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the mother permanentlyneglected the children (see Matter ofMyles N., 49 AD3d 381, 381 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 709 [2008]). Althoughshe attended all the programs recommended by the agency, she failed to correct the conditionsthat led to the placement of the children in foster care, she remained in an abusive relationshipwith the father of two of the subject children and attempted to hide that relationship from theagency, and she failed to gain insight into either the needs of the children or her own limitations(see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 841-842 [1986]). The evidence indicated thatthe mother suffered from a deteriorating mental condition, failed to properly assess herdaughter's serious mental problems, and remained passive during visits with the children.
Clear and convincing evidence also supports the court's determination that the fatherabandoned his children (see Matter of Ruben J.R., 303 AD2d 238 [2003], lvdenied 100 NY2d 507 [2003]). The father admitted that although he was aware of hischildren's placement with the agency and their residence with the grandmother, he made noattempt to contact the children [*2]or the agency after theexpiration of the order of protection. Moreover, the order of protection itself did not relieve himof his obligation to maintain contact (see Matter of Gabrielle HH., 1 NY3d 549 [2003]).
The agency established by a preponderance of the evidence that the best interests of thechildren would be served by terminating respondents' parental rights so as to facilitate theiradoption by the foster mother, the children's maternal grandmother, with whom they haveresided for six years and wish to remain (see Matter of Sean LaMonte Vonta M., 54 AD3d 635 [2008]). Noevidence was presented that the grandmother's home was not suitable for the children.Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman and RomÁn, JJ.