| Matter of Janell J. (Shanequa J.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07179 [88 AD3d 512] |
| October 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Janell J. and Another, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Shanequa J., Appellant; Cardinal McCloskey Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Waksberg of counsel),attorney for the children.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered onor about September 24, 2010, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondentmother's parental rights to the subject children and committed custody and guardianship of thechildren to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The record shows that the agency made diligent efforts toencourage and strengthen respondent's relationship with her children by referring her tocounseling, parenting skills and anger management courses, and by scheduling regular supervisedvisitation (see Matter of JonathanM., 19 AD3d 197 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 798 [2005]). Although respondentcompleted many of the services to which she was referred, she failed to gain insight into herparenting problems and thus failed to adequately plan for the children's future (see Matter of Mark Eric R. [Juelle VirginiaG.], 80 AD3d 518 [2011]).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that it is in the children's best intereststo terminate respondent's parental rights and free the children for adoption by their foster mother,with whom they have lived for several years (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136,147-148 [1984]). The record shows that the children have bonded with the foster mother, [*2]who wishes to adopt them, and have thrived under her care. Bycontrast, respondent made no progress in counseling. Under the circumstances, a suspendedjudgment is not warranted (see Matter ofJuan A. [Nhaima D.R.], 72 AD3d 542, 543 [2010]). Concur—Catterson, J.P.,Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and RomÁn, JJ.