| Matter of Victoria C. (Cassandra C.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03835 [106 AD3d 1084] |
| May 29, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Victoria C. Suffolk County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Cassandra C., Appellant. |
—[*1] Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Brian B. Mulholland ofcounsel), for respondent. Joseph D. Mirabella, Mastic, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b and Family CourtAct article 6 to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the motherappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Hoffmann, J.), dated April 4, 2012, which, after fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parentalrights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissionerof Social Services for Suffolk County for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly found that thepetitioning agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationship (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]), and that the motherfailed to plan for the child's future. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing showed thatthe mother failed to gain insight into the problems that caused the child's removal, andthat were preventing the child's return to her care (see Matter of Sonia H., 177AD2d 575, 576 [1991]). Thus, the Family Court properly found that the motherpermanently neglected the child.
The Family Court also properly determined that it was in the child's best interests toterminate the mother's parental rights. A suspended judgment was not appropriate in lightof the mother's lack of insight into her problems, and her failure to acknowledge andaddress the primary issues which led to the child's removal in the first instance (see Matter of Amber D.C.[Angelica C.], 79 AD3d 865, 866 [2010]). Additionally, the court did not err indispensing with the notice requirement for adoption proceedings (see DomesticRelations Law § 111 [2] [c]; Matter of Amy B., 37 AD3d 600, 601 [2007]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroiand Miller, JJ., concur.