| Matter of Ronnie P. (Danielle Q.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07437 [77 AD3d 1094] |
| October 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Ronnie P., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Danielle Q., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Aubrey P., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected.Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Danielle Q., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Ingrid Olsen-Tjensvold, Cortland County Department of Social Services, Cortland, forrespondent. Kelly M. Corbett, Fayetteville, attorney for the children.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.),entered October 13, 2009, which granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate the subject children to be permanentlyneglected.
In March 2008, respondent consented to the removal of her two sons (born in 1998 and2000) from her care after she admitted to hitting her older son, causing welts and bruising on hisarm and back. Three months thereafter, by order entered on respondent's consent, Family Courtadjudicated the children to be neglected on the basis that respondent had failed to provide themwith adequate supervision and guardianship by inflicting excessive corporalpunishment—and by allowing her boyfriend to do the same—and then inducing thechildren to lie about it.[FN*]The court ordered that the children were to remain in petitioner's custody and imposed certainconditions upon respondent.
In March 2009, after the children had been in petitioner's custody for more than one year,petitioner commenced the instant permanent neglect proceedings. Following a fact-findinghearing, Family Court found that the mother had permanently neglected the children. At theconclusion of the subsequent dispositional hearing, Family Court issued a suspended judgment,which advised respondent that her failure to comply with the terms and conditions of thatjudgment could result in its revocation and the issuance of an order terminating her parentalrights. Respondent appeals.
Initially, contrary to respondent's contention, there is clear and convincing evidence ofpetitioner's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship betweenrespondent and the children (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Lawrence KK. [LawrenceLL.], 72 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]). The recordreflects that petitioner made "reasonable attempts" to encourage the relationship (Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [7] [f]) by assigning to respondent caseworkers who developed a case planfor the family and recommended and offered various programs and counseling services to her.Petitioner also provided her with weekly visitation. The caseworkers emphasized the importanceof respondent participating in the recommended services and informed her that she needed todevelop a plan for the children's future by establishing a safe and suitable home, maintainingemployment and severing her relationship with her boyfriend, who had physically abused andmentally traumatized the children. In addition, petitioner maintained contact with the childrenand their foster parents and ensured that the children received counseling.[*2]
While respondent claims that petitioner could have beenmore diligent by providing her with joint counseling sessions with the children, as her therapisthad recommended in January 2009, the record reflects that the therapist recommended suchsessions based upon her erroneous belief that respondent had severed her relationship with theboyfriend, when, in fact, respondent had not been truthful in that regard. Considering that thetherapist testified that she would not have made the recommendation had she been aware thatrespondent had lied, the fact that petitioner did not arrange for the joint counseling sessions doesnot preclude a finding of diligent efforts by petitioner. Likewise, a finding of diligent efforts isnot precluded by the fact that petitioner successfully sought a temporary suspension ofrespondent's visitation with the children considering that the record reflects that, during hervisitation, respondent was pressuring the children to recant their allegations and tell thecaseworkers that they wanted to be returned to respondent's care.
Next, we agree with Family Court's finding that respondent failed to plan for the future of thechildren (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [c]). Although respondentparticipated in most of the programs recommended to her by petitioner and attended counselingsessions, the record reveals that respondent failed to benefit from them (see Matter of JosephZZ., 245 AD2d 881, 884 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998]). For instance,respondent was repeatedly advised that her relationship with her drug-addicted and abusiveboyfriend was an impediment to her regaining custody of the children. Despite respondent'sinsistence that she had ended the relationship, she was discovered to be in his company onnumerous occasions, including an incident in which the boyfriend overdosed on drugs in a hotelroom he was sharing with respondent. Her blatant dishonesty indicates that she failed toappreciate the gravity of the situation and that she failed to rectify the circumstances that causedher to lose custody of the children in the first place (see Matter of Mary MM. [Leuetta NN.], 72 AD3d 1427, 1429[2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]). Moreover, at times, when respondent was notflatly denying her role in causing the children's injuries, she attempted to minimize the physicaland emotional harm that she and the boyfriend had inflicted upon them. Accordingly, we agreewith Family Court that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that respondent did not"take such steps as [were] necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care" forthe children (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; see Matter of Sierra C. [Deborah D.], 74 AD3d 1445, 1447 [2010]).
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *: As a result of the incident,respondent was convicted, upon her plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the third degree,endangering the welfare of a child, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and twocounts of obstructing governmental administration, and she was sentenced to a term of probation.Respondent's boyfriend was convicted of attempting to obstruct governmental administration anddisorderly conduct. In addition, orders of protection were issued against respondent and herboyfriend, pursuant to which respondent was allowed contact with the children only underpetitioner's supervision.