| Matter of Sierra C. (Deborah D.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04690 [74 AD3d 1445] |
| June 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Sierra C., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Deborah D.,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Kavanagh, J. Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Cortland County (Campbell,J.), entered September 2, 2009 and October 21, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in aproceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate Sierra C. a permanentlyneglected child, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
While pregnant, respondent chronically abused drugs and, as a result, her child sufferedsevere withdrawal symptoms requiring that she be hospitalized for nearly three monthsimmediately after her birth in 2007.[FN1]Upon her discharge from the hospital, the child lived with [*2]respondent for one month, but was subsequently placed in fostercare because of respondent's continued addiction to drugs. In March 2008, Family Courtdetermined that the child was neglected and issued a dispositional order requiring respondent toparticipate in a substance abuse treatment program, remain drug free and submit to counseling toaddress her long-standing mental health issues. Since that order was issued, the child has, but fora seven-month period in 2008, remained in foster care.[FN2]
One year later, in March 2009, petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that the childwas permanently neglected because respondent failed to comply with Family Court'sdispositional order and continued to abuse drugs. Following fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, Family Court adjudicated the child to be permanently neglected and terminatedrespondent's parental rights. Respondent appeals claiming that petitioner has not established thatshe permanently neglected the child or, in the alternative, that it was in the child's best intereststo terminate her parental rights as opposed to suspending such a judgment to give her anopportunity to demonstrate that she could provide the child with appropriate care. We affirm.
Initially, we agree with Family Court's determination—which respondent does notchallenge on appeal—that "petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that itmade diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship" (Matter of Lawrence KK. [LawrenceLL.], 72 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted];see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Jasper QQ., 64 AD3d 1017, 1020 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]; Matter of Laelani B., 59 AD3d 880, 881 [2009]; see also Matter of Keegan JJ. [AmandaJJ.], 72 AD3d 1159, 1160 n 2 [2010]). Moreover, while petitioner has undoubtedlysought to assist respondent and put her in a position where she can ultimately be reunited withher child, respondent has failed to respond to those efforts by effectively addressing heraddiction to illegal drugs and, at the same time, has not participated in the preparation of a planthat, if implemented, would provide for the child's future (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [a], [c]; Matter ofGerald BB., 51 AD3d 1081, 1083-1084 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]).
In that regard, numerous witnesses and, in particular, drug treatment professionals, testifiedat the hearing to the fact that respondent continues to have a chaotic lifestyle that is marked byan addiction to illegal drugs. She has not been able to complete a substance abuse program andadmits to, while in such a program, not attending scheduled meetings with her counselor andtesting positive for the presence of illegal drugs. While respondent undoubtedly cares for herchild—and has sought to visit with the child on a regular basis—the reality is thatshe has not benefitted from the services offered by petitioner or otherwise expressed "insight intothe circumstances that caused the [child's] removal from her care" (Matter of Audrey I., 57 AD3d1172, 1174 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]; see Matter of Laelani B.,59 AD3d at 881-882; Matter of DestinyCC., 40 AD3d 1167, 1169 [2007]). By not taking advantage of this opportunity toaddress those conditions that led to the child's removal from her care, respondent has, in ourview, effectively failed to plan for the child's future (see Matter of Alaina E., 59 AD3d 882, 885-886 [2009], lvdenied 12 NY3d 710 [2009]; Matter of Eric G., 59 AD3d 785, 787[*3][2009]; Matter of Isaiah F., 55 AD3d 1004, 1005-1006 [2008], lvsdenied 11 NY3d 716 [2009]) and, as such, the finding of permanent neglect as rendered byFamily Court was amply supported by clear and convincing evidence presented during thehearing (see Matter of Kaytlin TT.,61 AD3d 1085, 1087 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009]; Matter of Angelica VV., 53 AD3d732, 733 [2008]).
Nor are we persuaded by respondent's arguments that the best interests of the child would beserved by the issuance of a suspended judgment and by not immediately terminating her parentalrights (see Matter of Carlos R., 63AD3d 1243, 1245-1246 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]). In this regard, wenote the obvious—respondent has simply refused to recognize the negative impact heraddiction to drugs will inevitably have on her child and how it has rendered her incapable ofcaring for the child or providing for the child's basic needs. We are also mindful of the fact thatthe child has developed a close bond with her foster parents and, by all accounts, is thriving intheir care. In light of the aforementioned evidence, and "according deference to Family Court'sdetermination given its opportunity to assess the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, wecannot say that the court abused its discretion in terminating [respondent's] parental rights ratherthan granting a suspended judgment" (Matter of Nevaeh SS. [Valerie L.], 68 AD3d 1188, 1190 [2009];see Matter of Carlos R., 63 AD3d at 1246; Matter of Laelani B., 59 AD3d at882).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed,without costs.
Footnote 1: Because of respondent'saddiction to drugs, her other children have been adjudicated by Family Court as neglected.
Footnote 2: During this period, the child andrespondent resided with the maternal grandmother, but the child was later returned to foster carewhen the grandmother was no longer able to physically provide for her basic needs and welfare.