| Matter of Jonathan B. (Linda S.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04244 [84 AD3d 1078] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jonathan B., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Linda S.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (James G. Bernet of counsel), forrespondent. Paraskevi Zarkadas, Centereach, 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 of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated March 31, 2010, which,after a hearing, found that she permanently neglected the subject child and terminated herparental rights.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The subject child was born on July 15, 2008. At birth, the child tested positive for bothopiates and methadone, and he was placed in foster care immediately upon his discharge from thehospital. The Family Court directed the mother to undergo a mental health evaluation, to attend adrug treatment program, and to participate in psychotherapy, substance abuse training, and parenteffectiveness training. Although the mother completed a parent effectiveness training course, shenever received mental health treatment on a regular basis. Moreover, she failed to completenumerous outpatient substance abuse programs, and admitted using heroin even after the SuffolkCounty Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS) filed the instant petition to terminateher parental rights in December 2009.
In the order appealed from, the Family Court found that the mother had permanentlyneglected the child, terminated the mother's parental rights, and placed the child in the custody ofthe DSS for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.
To establish permanent neglect, there must be clear and convincing proof that, for a period ofone year following the child's placement with an authorized agency, the parent failed tosubstantially and continuously maintain contact with the child or, alternatively, failed to plan forthe future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding theagency's diligent efforts to encourage [*2]and strengthen theparental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of StarLeslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). "At a minimum, planning for the future of thechild requires the parent to take steps to correct the conditions that led to the child's removalfrom the home" (Matter of DavidO.C., 57 AD3d 775, 775-776 [2008]; see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838,840 [1986]; Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 125 [1979]). Here, the Family Courtproperly found that the mother's failure to address her substance abuse problem supported thefinding of permanent neglect (see Matterof David O.C., 57 AD3d 775 [2008]; Matter of Jonathan P., 283 AD2d 675[2001]).
At a dispositional hearing after a finding of permanent neglect, the Family Court must makeits determination based upon the best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act §631; Matter of Ashey Lorraine R.,22 AD3d 671 [2005]; Matter of Crystal C., 219 AD2d 601, 602 [1995]). The FamilyCourt's determination must be afforded great weight, as it had the opportunity to observe thecredibility and demeanor of the witnesses (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d at 842;Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]). Here, the Family Court properlyconcluded that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights and freehim for adoption by his foster parents, with whom he has lived virtually his entire life (see Matter of Keynyha Shante Marie B.[Craig B.], 76 AD3d 1063 [2010]; Matter of David O.C., 57 AD3d 775 [2008]; Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48 AD3d469 [2008]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.