| Matter of Joseph W. (Monica W.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04186 [95 AD3d 1347] |
| May 30, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joseph W., Appellant. Nassau County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Monica W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofKenneth W., Also Known as Kenneth I., Appellant. Nassau County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Monica W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) (And AnotherTitle.) |
—[*1] Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for respondent-appellant. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (David A. Tauster of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. John M. Zenir, P.C., Mineola, N.Y., for nonparty Gloria Smith.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate themother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, and related custody proceedingspursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so muchof an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.),dated February 10, 2011, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that shepermanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and transferredcustody and guardianship of the children to the Nassau County Department of Social Services forthe purpose of adoption, and the children Joseph W. and Kenneth W., also known as Kenneth I.,separately appeal from the same order which, inter alia, after a hearing, denied the maternalgrandmother's petitions for custody of them.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subject [*2]children. The petitioner established by clear and convincingevidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d136, 142-143 [1984]). These efforts included facilitating visitation, regularly visiting andspeaking with the mother by telephone, repeatedly providing the mother with referrals for drugtreatment programs and mental health evaluations and counseling, and repeatedly advising themother of the need for her to attend and complete such programs (see Matter of Darrnell G. [Robin DeniseH.], 88 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011];Matter of Austin C. [Alicia Y.], 77AD3d 938, 938-939 [2010]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for thechildren's future by failing to attend visitation sessions regularly, failing to participate in asubstance abuse treatment program, continuing the use of illegal drugs, and failing to attendtherapy and take her medication consistently (see Matter of Dileina M.F. [Rosa F.], 88 AD3d 998, 999 [2011]; Matter of John M. [Raymond K.], 82AD3d 1100 [2011]; Matter ofDustin H. [Patricia B.], 68 AD3d 1112, 1113 [2009]). Moreover, based on the evidenceadduced at the dispositional hearing, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the bestinterests of the children to terminate the mother's parental rights (see Matter of Anthony R. [Juliann A.],90 AD3d 1055, 1056-1057 [2011]).
The Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the children to deny thematernal grandmother's petitions for custody of the children has a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Angela S. v Administrationfor Children's Servs., 39 AD3d 551 [2007]; Matter of James v Hickey, 6 AD3d 536, 537 [2004]; Matter ofVioletta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480 [2003]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Roman and Miller, JJ.,concur.
Motion by Gloria S., inter alia, to strike stated portions of the brief of the appellants JosephW. and Kenneth W., also known as Kenneth I., on appeals from an order of the Family Court,Nassau County, dated February 10, 2011. By decision and order on motion of this Court datedFebruary 14, 2012, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel ofJustices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, andupon the argument of the appeal, it is,
Ordered that the branch of the motion which was to strike stated portions of the brief of theappellants Joseph W. and Kenneth W., also known as Kenneth I., is denied. Skelos, J.P., Florio,Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.