| Matter of Justin I.B. (Natalie B.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06945 [99 AD3d 897] |
| October 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Justin I. B., an Infant. OHEL Children's Home &Family Services, Respondent; Natalie B., Appellant. |
—[*1] James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent. Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother'sparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J.), dated March 3,2011, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglectedthe subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of thesubject child jointly to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and thepetitioner, OHEL Children's Home & Family Services, for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The petitioner agency established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the mother and the subject child bymeeting with the mother to review her service plan, discussing the importance of compliance,providing referrals to the mother for therapy, anger management classes, parenting skills classes,and housing, discussing the importance of the mother's obtaining suitable income, and schedulingvisitation between the mother and the subject child (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter ofFernando Alexander B. [Simone Anita W.], 85 AD3d 658, 659 [2011]; Matter of John M. [Raymond K.], 82AD3d 1100 [2011]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the future of thechild (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]).The mother's partial compliance with the service plan was insufficient to preclude a finding ofpermanent neglect (see Matter of"Female" C., 55 AD3d 603, 604 [2008]; Matter of Robert David L., 7 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]; Matter ofShane Anthony P., 307 AD2d 297 [2003]).
Furthermore, the Family Court correctly determined that it would be in the child's bestinterests to terminate the mother's parental rights and free the child for adoption by his foster[*2]parents, with whom he has resided continuously since 2006(see Matter of Daevon Lamar P., 48AD3d 469, 470 [2008]; Matter ofTynell S., 43 AD3d 1171, 1173 [2007]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ.,concur.