| Matter of Angelica W. (Dorothy W.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00523 [80 AD3d 772] |
| January 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Angelica W. Administration for Children's Serviceset al., Respondents; Dorothy W., Appellant. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, N.Y., for respondent Forrestdale, Inc. Heidi Luna, Jamaica, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rightson the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding anddisposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated January 29,2010, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights upon afinding that she permanently neglected the subject child, and transferred custody andguardianship of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration forChildren's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearingestablished by clear and convincing evidence that for a period of one year following theplacement of the subject child with an authorized agency, the mother failed to plan for the futureof the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency'sdiligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social ServicesLaw § 384-b [7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 143 [1984]; Matter of Arriola Nicole S., 45 AD3d407, 408 [2007]; Matter of JoquanJomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d 868, 869 [2007]; Matter of Ray A., 30 AD3d 410, 411 [2006]). Further, the FamilyCourt properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating themother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by her foster mother (see Matter of Ashey Lorraine R., 22AD3d 671, 672 [2005]). A suspended judgment was not warranted despite the mother'srecent efforts to plan for the child's future because the child has bonded with her foster motherwho has competently and consistently provided for her specialized needs since she was 10months old, and it is not in the child's best interests, under the circumstances, to prolong fostercare (see Matter of Tyria W., 41AD3d 859, 860 [2007]; Matter ofPaul Michael G., 36 AD3d 541, 542 [2007]; Matter of Olivia Susan C., 2 AD3d 441, 442 [2003]; Matter ofMarie J., 307 AD2d 265 [2003]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.