| Matter of Christina M.R. (Lynette Cassandra C.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08748 [101 AD3d 1021] |
| December 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christina M.R., Also Known as Christina R., anInfant. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Lynette Cassandra C., Also Known asLynette C.C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.) In the Matter of Julie M.R., AlsoKnown as Julie R., an Infant. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents; Lynette Cassandra C.,Also Known as Lynette C.C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Appeal No. 2.) In the Matter ofPaula C.R., Also known as Paula R., an Infant. SCO Family of Services et al., Respondents;Lynette Cassandra C., Also Known as Lynette C.C., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Appeal No.3.) |
—[*1] Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for petitioner SCOFamily of Services. Eric Perlmutter, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, inter alia, toterminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, as limited byher brief, from so much of three orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) ofthe [*2]Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), all datedNovember 16, 2011, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she permanentlyneglected the children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianshipof the children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and SCO Familyof Services for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly determined that the petitionerSCO Family of Services established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, facilitatingregular visitation with the children and referring her to parenting classes and therapy programs(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter ofDariana K.C. [Katherine M.], 99 AD3d 899, 901 [2012]). Despite these efforts, themother failed to plan for the future of the children by failing to consistently attend visitation andto complete a necessary parenting class and a therapy program (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of JosephW. [Monica W.], 95 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2012]; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]).Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected thechildren.
Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of thechildren to terminate the mother's parental rights, thus freeing the children for adoption by theirfoster parent (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148; Matter of ZechariahJ. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. vOrange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]; Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.],79 AD3d 865, 866 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.