| Matter of Christopher T. (Margarita V.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02699 [94 AD3d 900] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher T. St. Vincent's Children's Services,Inc., Respondent; Margarita V., Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Frederick J. Magovern of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the parentalrights of the mother and the father on the grounds of abandonment and permanent neglect, themother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the FamilyCourt, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated November 5, 2010, as, after a hearing, terminatedher parental rights, transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the petitioner St.Vincent's Children's Services, Inc., and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of NewYork for the purpose of adoption, and determined that visitation between the mother and thechild would not be in the child's best interests.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served byterminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by his foster parents(see Matter of Beyonce H. [BaranacaH.], 85 AD3d 1168, 1168 [2011]; Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 AD3d 832, 833 [2010];Matter of Daniel A.G. [Jose RicardoG.], 78 AD3d 831 [2010]; Matter of Teshana Tracey T. [Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032, 1034[2010]; Matter of David O.C., 57AD3d 775, 756 [2008]). Contrary to the mother's contention, a suspended judgment was notappropriate in light of her lack of insight into her problems and her failure to address the primaryissues which led to the child's removal in the first instance (see Matter of Peter C., Jr. [Peter C.], 88 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011]; Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AD3d 865, 866 [2010]; cf. Matter of Christopher Lee B., 65AD3d 549 [2009]).
Furthermore, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to permitvisitation between the mother and the child after the mother's parental rights were terminated (see Matter of Shae Tylasia I.M. [Lisa AnneG.], 89 AD3d 527 [2011]; cf. Matter of Corinthian Marie S., 297 AD2d 382[2002]). Balkin, J.P., Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.