Matter of Aliyah Careema D. (Sophia Seku D.)
2011 NY Slip Op 07266 [88 AD3d 529]
October 18, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 7, 2011


In the Matter of Aliyah Careema D., a Child Alleged to beAbandoned. Sophia Seku D., Appellant; The Children's Aid Society,Respondent.

[*1]Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), forappellant.

Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, The Children's Aid Society, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger ofcounsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (John A. Newbery of counsel),attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ilana Grubel, J.), entered on or about September 8,2010, which revoked a suspended judgment entered on a finding of abandonment, terminatedrespondent mother's parental rights to the subject child, and committed the custody andguardianship of the child to petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purposesof adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that respondent violated the terms of the suspended judgment is supported by apreponderance of the evidence (see e.g.Matter of Kendra C.R. [Charles R.], 68 AD3d 467 [2009], lv dismissed anddenied 14 NY3d 870 [2010]). Respondent was required, inter alia, to submit to random drugtesting and remain free of illicit substances, maintain regular and consistent supervised visitation,and obtain and maintain a source of income and suitable housing for herself and the child.Shortly after the suspended judgment was granted, respondent was convicted of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree, and sentenced to 2½ years' incarceration.Moreover, respondent failed to maintain contact with the child for four months after she wasincarcerated, which failure is not excused by her incarceration (see Matter of AnthonyM., 195 AD2d 315, 316 [1993]).

The finding that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the child's best interests issupported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that respondent would remainincarcerated until after the period of the suspended judgment had expired, and that the child'skinship foster mother has been providing quality care for the child, wants to adopt her, and hasbeen trained to handle her special needs (see e.g. Matter of David J., 260 AD2d 279[1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.