| Matter of Toyie Fannie J. (Toyie D.H.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07237 [77 AD3d 449] |
| October 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Toyie Fannie J. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Toyie D.H., Appellant; Harlem Dowling Westside Center for Children,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Office of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or aboutSeptember 1, 2009, which, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother'sparental rights to the subject children and transferred custody of the children to petitioner agency andthe Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for purposes of adoption, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence of respondent'sfailure to plan for the children's future, notwithstanding the petitioning agency's diligent efforts (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]; see Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 380-381[1984]). Although the agency provided referrals for a mental health evaluation, made arrangements forregular visitations, and met with respondent to review her service plan and discuss the importance ofcompliance, respondent's visits with the children were sporadic, and she failed to timely comply with theagency's referrals for a mental health evaluation (see Matter of Lady Justice I., 50 AD3d 425 [2008]; Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d367 [2007]; Matter of Jonathan M.,19 AD3d 197 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 798 [2005]; Matter of Lamikia ShawnS., 276 AD2d 279 [2000]; Matter of Emily A., 216 AD2d 124 [1995]).
A preponderance of evidence establishes that termination of respondent's parental rights was in thechildren's best interests (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). Asuspended judgment was not warranted because, although respondent did ultimately provide theagency with a copy of a mental health evaluation, she still had not commenced counseling, and therewas no evidence that she had a realistic, feasible plan to care for the children (see Matter of Rayshawn F., 36 AD3d429 [2007]; Matter of Antoine M.,7 AD3d 399 [2004]; Matter of TiffanyR., 7 AD3d 297 [2004]; Matter ofDarzell Levar D., 6 AD3d 239[*2][2004]; Matter ofCharlene Lashay J., 280 AD2d 320 [2001]; cf. Matter of Christian Lee R., 9 AD3d 275 [2004]).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeney, Moskowitz, Acosta and RomÁn, JJ.