| Matter of Jazmin Marva B. (Cecile Marva B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03368 [72 AD3d 569] |
| April 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Jazmin Marva B. and Another, Children Alleged tobe Permanently Neglected. Cecile Marva B., Appellant; McMahon Services for Children,Respondent, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Harris of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or aboutFebruary 19, 2009, which, upon findings that respondent mother permanently neglected thesubject children and that respondent father permanently neglected the child Janiyah F.,terminated respondents' parental rights, and committed custody and guardianship of the childrento petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for thepurpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect against the mother was supported by clear and convincingevidence (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The record establishes that the agencymade diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, including, inter alia,working with the mother to formulate a service plan, maintaining frequent contact with her,scheduling visits between the mother and the children, referring her for individual therapy andtaking steps to assist her in obtaining suitable housing (see Matter of Aisha T., 55 AD3d 435 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 716 [2009]). Despite these diligent efforts, the mother failed to plan for the children'sfuture by failing to obtain the required treatment and appropriate housing. The father also failedto plan for his child's future by not obtaining appropriate housing (see Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44AD3d 367, 368 [2007] [finding of permanent neglect supported by failure to "take steps tocorrect the conditions that led to the removal of his daughter"]), and where he did not file forpaternity until well after his daughter had been in care.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that the termination of parentalrights to facilitate the adoptive process was in the best interests of the children. The childrenhave lived with their foster parents for most of their lives and are provided with a loving [*2]and supportive home (see Matter of Racquel Olivia M., 37 AD3d 279, 280 [2007], lvdenied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]).
The father's argument that the court should have entered a suspended judgment isunpreserved. In any event, suspending judgment was not in Janiyah's best interests, as she hasbonded with her foster family and "there [is] no evidence of a parental relationship with [thefather] sufficient to justify delay of the adoptive process" (Matter of Jazminn O'Dell P., 39 AD3d 235 [2007]).Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.