| Matter of Anthony P. (Shanae P.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03910 [84 AD3d 510] |
| May 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Anthony P., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Shanae P., Appellant; Episcopal Social Services, Respondent, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on orabout March 2, 2010, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondentmother's parental rights to the subject child and committed the custody and guardianship of thechild to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Servicesfor the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The determination that the agency exercised diligent efforts to support reunification ofrespondent and her child was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agencyprovided respondent with a service plan and referrals tailored to her needs, and required her tocomplete anger management training, parenting skills training, and therapy, among other things.The agency diligently sought to "encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent andchild" by scheduling regular supervised visitation, to no avail (see Social Services Law384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Aliyah Julia N.[Cecelia Lee N.], 81 AD3d 519 [2011]).
Clear and convincing evidence supports the determination that respondent permanentlyneglected the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Notwithstanding herprogress during the relevant statutory period, respondent was convicted of attempted murder andarrested for assaulting the child's father after attending two anger management programs.Respondent was also arrested for prostitution. This indicates that she has not sufficientlyaddressed the initial problems, i.e., the criminal and violent tendencies, "that led to [the child's]foster care placement [*2]in the first place" (Matter of Alpacheta C., 41 AD3d285, 285 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 812 [2007]; see also Matter of Violeta P., 45 AD3d 352 [2007]). Further, theagency amply demonstrated, and respondent conceded, that she regularly missed visits with thechild, cancelled at the last minute, arrived late, left early, and failed consistently to cancel orconfirm appointments, as required (seeMatter of Aisha C., 58 AD3d 471, 472 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 706 [2009];see Matter of Kimberly Carolyn J.,37 AD3d 174 [2007], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 968 [2007]). Moreover, the recorddemonstrates less than successful visits.
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the child's best interests are served byterminating respondent's parental rights (see Matter of Mark Eric R. [Juelle Virginia G.], 80 AD3d 518[2011]). The record shows that the child has been living in a well kept and safe home with afoster mother who has tended to his day-to-day needs since 2008. While respondent argues thatshe has bonded with the child, there is no presumption that the child's best interest lies inplacement with a birth parent, and the record demonstrates that the child shares a stronger bondwith his foster mother (see Matter of Male M., 210 AD2d 136 [1994]).
Respondent's request for a suspended judgment is unpreserved and, in any event,unwarranted (see Matter of JadaSerenity H., 60 AD3d 469 [2009]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta,Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.