| Matter of Megan L.G.H. (Theresa G.H.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00333 [102 AD3d 869] |
| January 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Megan L.G.H. Harlem Dowling-WestsideCenter for Children and Family Services et al., Respondents; Theresa G.H.,Appellant. |
—[*1] James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Frederic P. Schneider, New York, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parentalrights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Arias, J.), datedDecember 20, 2011, which, upon her admission that she permanently neglected thesubject child, and after a dispositional hearing, terminated her parental rights andtransferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the HarlemDowling-Westside Center for Children and Family Services and the Commissioner ofSocial Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The mother contends that the Family Court's finding of permanent neglect, madeupon her admission, was not based on legally sufficient evidence. However, hercontention is unpreserved for appellate review given her failure to move before theFamily Court to vacate her admission of permanent neglect (see Matter of AidanD., 58 AD3d 906, 908 [2009]; Matter of Atiba Andrew B., 275 AD2d 320,321 [2000]). In any event, this claim is without merit. Contrary to the mother'scontention, the Family Court did not err in finding that she permanently neglected thesubject child even though the petitioning agency did not prove that it made diligentefforts to strengthen the parental relationship (see Matter of Ayame O.-M., 63 AD3d 1069, 1071 [2009];Matter of Fard Saleem G., 297 AD2d 677, 678 [2002]). The agency was notrequired to present such evidence because the mother admitted that she permanentlyneglected the child by failing to maintain suitable housing (see Matter of Aaron S., 15AD3d 585, 586 [2005]; Matter of Rita XX., 279 AD2d 901 [2001]).
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properlydetermined that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the mother's parentalrights (see Matter of Anthony R.[Juliann A.], 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011];Matter of Teshana Tracey T.[Janet T.], 71 AD3d 1032 [2010]; Matter of Desire Star H., 202 AD2d[*2]582, 584 [1994]). Termination of parental rights willfree the child for adoption, providing her with the opportunity to have a permanentfamily (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299 [1992]; Matter of Anthony R. [JuliannA.], 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84AD3d 1087 [2011]).
Moreover, a suspended judgment was not appropriate in light of the mother's lack ofinsight into her problems and her failure to acknowledge and address some of the issueswhich led to the child's removal in the first instance (see Matter of Christopher T. [Margarita V.], 94 AD3d 900,901 [2012]; Matter of ShaolinE.P. [Jettris P.], 91 AD3d 954, 955 [2012]; Matter of Anthony R. [Juliann A.], 90 AD3d 1055 [2011];Matter of Zechariah J. [ValrickJ.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.