| Matter of Shania D. (Peggy E.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02495 [82 AD3d 1513] |
| March 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Shania D. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Respondent; PeggyE., Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph Cassidy, Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Ithaca, for respondent. Natalie B. Miner, Homer, attorney for the children.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.),entered October 19, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate the subject children to be permanentlyneglected, and terminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent is the mother of Shania D. and William D. (born in 2001 and 2003,respectively), who, in 2007, were removed from her care by the Tioga County Department ofSocial Services and placed in the custody of their maternal aunt and uncle. After the matter wastransferred to Tompkins County, petitioner, in April 2009, commenced this proceeding pursuantto Social Services Law § 384-b seeking a determination that respondent had permanentlyneglected the children and an order terminating her parental rights. After a fact-finding hearing,Family Court adjudicated the children to be permanently neglected and concluded, as a result of[*2]evidence introduced during a dispositional hearing, that theirbest interests required that respondent's parental rights be terminated. Respondent now appeals.
Respondent does not challenge the finding of permanent neglect, but claims that FamilyCourt should have issued a suspended judgment as opposed to terminating her parental rights. "Asuspended judgment may be issued if it is in the best interests of the child[ren] to allow theparent additional time to improve parenting skills and demonstrate his or her fitness to care forthe child[ren]" (Matter of Kayla KK.[Tracy LL.], 68 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 707 [2010][citations omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 631 [b]; § 633; Matter of Anastasia FF., 66 AD3d1185, 1187 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 716 [2010]; Matter of Carlos R., 63 AD3d1243, 1246 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]). Here, we note that after thechildren had been removed from her care, respondent successfully participated in a number ofprograms recommended by petitioner, was gainfully employed and had appropriate livingaccommodations that would have been suitable for the children. However, she persistentlyrefused to recognize the risks her relationship with an abusive boyfriend posed for the childrenand the threat presented if this individual were allowed to reside with them. While respondentclaimed to have ended this relationship when this petition was filed in Family Court, there is nodoubt that for much of the two-year period after the children had been removed from her care,she continued in this relationship and engaged in a concerted effort to conceal it from petitioneror its authorized representatives. Simply stated, respondent's insistence on placing moreimportance on this relationship than on her children's well-being, coupled with questionableparenting choices that she made while visiting with the children, provided ample support forFamily Court's decision not to suspend its judgment terminating her parental rights. We also notethat the children appear to have thrived while in the care of their aunt and uncle, who haveindicated a desire to adopt them. Under these circumstances, and " 'according deference toFamily Court's determination given its opportunity to assess the demeanor and credibility of thewitnesses, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in terminating [respondent's]parental rights rather than granting a suspended judgment' " (Matter of Sierra C. [Deborah D.], 74 AD3d 1445, 1448 [2010],quoting Matter of Nevaeh SS. [ValerieL.], 68 AD3d 1188, 1190 [2009]).
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.