| Matter of Christopher John B. (Christopher B.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06837 [87 AD3d 1133] |
| September 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher John B., Jr. Nassau CountyDepartment of Social Services, Appellant; Christopher B., Sr., et al., Respondents. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Erynn Rose B. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Appellant;Christopher B., Sr., et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] James T. Murphy, Floral Park, N.Y. (Leslie W. Rubin of counsel), for respondentChristopher B., Sr. Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Tammy Feman of counsel), forrespondent Patrice B. Theo Liebmann, Hempstead, N.Y. (Amanda Cully on the brief), Attorney for theChildren.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parentalrights on the ground of permanent neglect, the petitioner appeals from an order of the FamilyCourt, Nassau County (Kent, J.), dated August 2, 2010, which, after a hearing, dismissed thepetitions, with prejudice.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner brought these proceedings to terminate parental rights based upon the parents'individual consent to findings of neglect against them (see Family Ct Act § 1051).The findings of neglect stemmed from the conclusion that the subject children had been "exposedto some form of sexual activity" by relatives of the parents.
The children are in the care of an authorized agency. Thus, in order to find that the [*2]children were permanently neglected, it must be determined thattheir "parent . . . has failed for a period of either at least one year or fifteen out ofthe most recent twenty-two months following the date such child came into the care of anauthorized agency substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or planfor the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding theagency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when such effortswill not be detrimental to the best interests of the child" (Social Services Law § 384-b [7][a]). When a foster care agency brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground ofpermanent neglect, it must, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that ithas fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen theparent-child relationship (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984];Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 380-381 [1984]). Those efforts must includecounseling, making suitable arrangements for visitation, providing assistance to the parents toresolve the problems preventing the child's discharge, and advising the parents of the child'sprogress and development (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 142).
Here, the petitioner did not demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that it madediligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. In this regard, we note thatthe Family Court correctly found that the petitioner's goal of having the parents eachacknowledge their responsibility for the abuse of the children prior to reunification wasunreasonable, given that both parents denied any direct involvement or participation in, or anyknowledge of, the specifics of the alleged abuse (see Matter of Charlene TT., 217 AD2d274 [1995]; cf. Matter of Jesus JJ., 232 AD2d 752 [1996]). Moreover, that goal wasnever clearly communicated to the parents, and no therapy specifically addressed to that issuewas ever provided by the petitioner (cf.Matter of Amy B., 37 AD3d 600 [2007]). Additionally, the petitioner failed to exercisedue diligence to adequately address the underlying allegations of sexual abuse, failed to exertsufficient diligent efforts with respect to arranging appropriate contact and visitation between theparents and children, and improperly kept the children in the care of foster parents whoundermined efforts towards reunification.
The evidence was also insufficient to show that, during the relevant period of time, theparents did not maintain contact with the children or that they failed to plan for their children'sfuture (see Matter of Albert MiltonK., 47 AD3d 261 [2007]). The latter criterion contemplates that the parent shall takesuch steps as are necessary to provide a home that is adequate and stable within a reasonableperiod of time (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). The parents herein visitedthe children whenever allowed to do so, and substantially complied with all terms set forth by thepetitioner. The parents also maintained contact with the caseworkers, attended individual therapyand family therapy when it was made available, and maintained adequate housing.
Accordingly, given the lack of clear and convincing evidence, the petitions were properlydismissed with prejudice. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.