| Matter of Roystar T. (Samarian B.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03595 [72 AD3d 1569] |
| April 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Roystar T. Wayne County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Samarian B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Gary Lee Bennett, Lyons, for petitioner-respondent. Tracey L. Fox, Law Guardian, Sodus, for Roystar T.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (John B. Nesbitt, J.), enteredFebruary 11, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order,among other things, terminated respondent's parental rights.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rightswith respect to one of her children on the ground of permanent neglect. We affirm. The mothercontends that Family Court was biased against her, as evidenced by certain statements made bythe court. We reject that contention. The first statement to which the mother objects involvedseparate proceedings concerning one of her other children. The remaining statements concernedthe mother's residence and finances, and thus the statements were relevant to the issue whetherthe mother had failed to "plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially ableto do so" (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; see Family Ct Act § 611).
Contrary to the mother's further contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusingto enter a suspended judgment, determining instead that the best interests of the child would beserved by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption. "Theprogress made by [the mother] in the months preceding the dispositional determination was notsufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child's unsettled familial status" (Matter of Maryline A., 22 AD3d227, 228 [2005]; see Matter ofArella D.P.-D., 35 AD3d 1222 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Matter of Jose R., 32 AD3d 1284,1285 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 718 [2006]). At the time of the dispositional hearing, thechild was 4½ years old and had been placed in foster care on three separate occasionsbecause of the mother's substance abuse, beginning at the time of the child's birth. Although therecord established that the mother made [*2]progress in treatmentand maintained her sobriety for intermittent periods, the record also established that she relapsedeach time the child was returned to her care (see Matter of Raine QQ., 51 AD3d 1106 [2008], lv denied10 NY3d 717 [2008]). We thus conclude that the court properly determined that "[f]reeingthe child for adoption provided him with prospects for permanency and some sense of thestability he deserved, rather than the perpetual limbo caused by unfulfilled hopes of returning to[the mother's] care" (id. at 1107). Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Fahey,Peradotto and Pine, JJ.