| Matter of Juan A. (Nhaima D.R.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03227 [72 AD3d 542] |
| April 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Juan A. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Family Support Systems Unlimited, Inc., Respondent; Nhaima D.R.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), LawGuardian.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol Ann Stokinger, J.), entered on or about June 13,2008, which found that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject children,terminated her parental rights, and committed custody and guardianship of the children jointly topetitioner and the New York City Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The threshold inquiry in any permanent neglect proceeding is whether the agency dischargedits statutory obligation to exert diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-childrelationship (see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 373 [1984]). Here, petitionerdemonstrated that it prepared a service plan for respondent that included drug treatment,parenting skills and anger management programs, and that she failed to comply with the planduring the relevant time period. When respondent advised petitioner that she had not completedthe drug treatment program because her public assistance was terminated, the caseworkerreferred her to the section of the agency with the expertise to assist her in reapplying. The agencyaddressed respondent's youth by referring her to a parenting skills program for teenage parents,which she failed to attend. It also established, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondentpermanently neglected her children by maintaining only sporadic contact with them throughouther unsettled history as a parent, and failed to address her drug problem during the relevantperiod (see Matter of Sean LaMonteVonta M., 54 AD3d 635 [2008]).
The court properly found a preponderance of the evidence in support of the conclusion that itwas in the best interests of the children to terminate respondent's parental rights and free [*2]them for adoption by their foster mother, with whom they had beenliving for years. The evidence revealed that the children have a loving and supportiverelationship with the foster mother and her husband, were receiving excellent care, and werethriving in that environment. Respondent acknowledged that she was not yet able to provide thechildren with a stable home.
A suspended judgment, which is a brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to bereunited with the child (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]), is notwarranted here because it does not appear to be in the best interests of the children to wait anylonger for respondent to gain the ability to fulfill her parental obligations.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.