| Matter of Tailer Q. (Melody Q.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05833 [86 AD3d 673] |
| July 7, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Tailer Q., a Child Alleged to be PermanentlyNeglected. Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Melody Q.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Joseph R. Cassidy, Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Ithaca, for respondent. Mari K. Townsend, Ithaca, attorney for the child.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.),entered November 24, 2010, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toSocial Services Law § 384-b, to adjudicate Tailer Q. a permanently neglected child, andterminated respondent's parental rights.
Respondent and Edward Q. (hereinafter the father) are the parents of Tailer Q. (born in2000). In October 2008, the child was removed from the parental home and a neglect petitionwas filed after he exhibited a series of ongoing acute and dangerous behavioral problems thatplaced him and others at risk of harm. The parents admitted their neglect. In February 2010,petitioner commenced this permanent neglect proceeding. The father surrendered his parentalrights and, following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, Family Court found the child to bepermanently neglected by respondent and terminated her parental rights. Respondent appeals.
Permanent neglect is established by clear and convincing proof that, first, the agency [*2]made the requisite diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage theparent-child relationship and, second, the parent failed either to maintain contact with the child orto appropriately plan for the child's future (see Matter of Tatianna K. [Claude U.], 79 AD3d 1184, 1185[2010]; Matter of Gerald BB., 51AD3d 1081, 1083 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). Here, evidence ofpetitioner's efforts to strengthen and encourage the parental relationship included, among otherthings, that petitioner's caseworkers maintained consistent contact with respondent, providedongoing services, encouraged and assisted in visitation, scheduled family team meetings,undertook case reassessments with respondent and service providers throughout the relevant timeperiod, and made repeated attempts to have respondent obtain the professional help she needed.Respondent's mental health problems were a significant underlying cause of her neglect, andpetitioner made avenues to address these problems available to respondent and encouraged herparticipation therein. The record supports Family Court's determination that petitioner madediligent efforts to develop and implement a plan to address the deficiencies that had resulted inthe removal of the child from the home.
Although respondent maintained contact with the child, Family Court found that petitionerestablished that respondent failed to plan for the child's future. " '[F]ailure to correct theconditions that led to the removal of the child is interpreted as the failure to plan for the child'sfuture' " (Matter of Willard L., 23AD3d 964, 965 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006], quoting Matter of KarinaU., 299 AD2d 772, 773 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 501 [2003]; see Matter ofNathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986]). Family Court set forth in detail in its decision thetestimony it found credible that established both that respondent refused to meaningfullyparticipate in mental health treatment necessary to address problems that resulted in the child'sremoval and, further, that she failed to appreciate the acute mental health needs of her son. Theevidence reflected her angrily refusing psychiatric evaluation as well as counseling, followed bya slight moderation in her temperament, but no significant progress addressing her problems, andthen a return to a pattern of hostility and refusal to cooperate. With regard to the child, the proofestablished that he had very serious mental health issues, but respondent blamed others for hiscondition and acted to undermine his treatment. Accepting Family Court's credibilitydeterminations, there was sufficient proof establishing that respondent failed to plan for thechild's future.
Respondent also argues that Family Court erred in terminating her parental rights rather thangranting a suspended judgment. "The disposition following a determination of permanent neglectmust be based solely on the best interests of the child, with no presumption that a return to theparent promotes those interests" (Matterof Raine QQ., 51 AD3d 1106, 1106 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 717 [2008][citations omitted]). In light of the lack of meaningful progress by respondent despite significantefforts by petitioner, together with the deference we accord Family Court's choice ofdispositional alternatives, we are unpersuaded by respondent's argument regarding the disposition(see id. at 1106-1107; Matter ofGeorge M., 48 AD3d 926, 929 [2008]; Matter of James X., 37 AD3d 1003, 1007 [2007]). Respondent'sremaining contention has been considered and found unavailing.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.