| Matter of Carol Anne Marie L. (Melissa L.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05483 [74 AD3d 643] |
| June 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Carol Anne Marie L. and Another, ChildrenAlleged to be Permanently Neglected. Melissa L., Appellant. In the Matter of Matthew RaymondL., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Geraldo P., Appellant; Saint Dominic's Homeet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for Geraldo P., appellant. Warren & Warren, P.C.,Brooklyn (Ira L. Eras of counsel), for Saint Dominic's Home, respondent. Michael S. Bromberg,Sag Harbor, Law Guardian.
Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about June 1,2009, which, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rightsto the subject children, and respondent father's parental rights to the child Matthew L., andcommitted the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and theCommissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding that respondent father permanently neglected Matthew was supported by clearand convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]); respondent isnot the father of the child Carol L. The record demonstrates that the agency made diligent effortsto encourage and strengthen the parental relationship including providing the father withreferrals to programs for drug rehabilitation and parenting skills and scheduling regularvisitation. Despite these efforts, the father did not complete a drug treatment program and failedto remain drug free (see Matter ofTiffany R., 7 AD3d 297 [2004]). He also missed approximately one quarter of hisscheduled visits with Matthew (seeMatter of Angel P., 44 AD3d 448 [2007]). Although the father insists that he has takensteps to address his substance abuse problem, such efforts, by themselves, are not sufficient todefeat a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Shane Anthony P., 307 AD2d 297[2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 513 [2003]).
The finding that the mother permanently neglected the children was likewise supported byclear and convincing evidence. The agency referred her to drug rehabilitation, angermanagement and parenting skills programs, all of which she failed to complete. Nor did she visitthe children on a sustained and regular basis.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that the termination ofrespondents' parental rights to facilitate the adoptive process was in the best interests of thechildren. The children have lived with their foster mother since their placement and havedeveloped a loving relationship with her; she has tended to their special needs and wants toadopt them. The circumstances presented do not warrant a suspended judgment (see Matter of Maryline A., 22 AD3d227 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam,JJ.