| Matter of Cole WW. (Amanda WW.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03892 [106 AD3d 1408] |
| May 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Cole WW., a Permanently Neglected Child.Madison County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Amanda WW. et al.,Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Ashton WW., a Permanently NeglectedChild. Madison County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Amanda WW. et al.,Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Lawrence P. Brown, Bridgeport, for Clarence WW., appellant. Julie Jones, Madison County Department of Social Services, Wampsville, forrespondent. Kelly M. Corbett, Fayetteville, attorney for the children.
Lahtinen, J. Appeals from an order of the Family Court of Madison County(McDermott, J.), entered June 25, 2012, which granted petitioner's applications, in twoproceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, to revoke two suspendedjudgments, and terminated respondents' parental rights.
Respondent Amanda WW. (hereinafter the mother) and respondent Clarence WW.(hereinafter the father) are the parents of Cole WW. (born in 2005) and Ashton WW.(born in 2008). Cole, who has been in foster care since May 2007, was adjudicated aneglected child in January 2008. Ashton was found to be neglected in February 2009 andplaced by petitioner in foster care. A permanent neglect petition regarding Cole resultedin a stipulated one-year suspended judgment in October 2009. Petitions allegingviolations thereof led to a further stipulated suspended judgment running throughOctober 2011, which coincided with a stipulated suspended judgment on a permanentneglect petition as to Ashton. Alleging numerous violations of the terms of thesuspended judgments, petitioner commenced these proceedings. Following a hearing,Family Court revoked the suspended judgment as to each child and terminatedrespondents' parental rights. Respondents appeal.
"The purpose of a suspended judgment is to provide a parent who has been found tohave permanently neglected his or her child[ren] with a brief grace period within whichto become a fit parent with whom the child[ren] can be safely reunited" (Matter of Clifton ZZ. [LatriceZZ.], 75 AD3d 683, 683 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted]; see Matter ofAlexandria A. [Ann B.], 93 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2012], lv denied 19NY3d 805 [2012]). "During such time period, the parent must comply with theprovisions of the suspended judgment, and Family Court may revoke the suspendedjudgment and terminate parental rights if a preponderance of the evidence indicates aparent's noncompliance with the terms thereof or the parent's failure to ameliorate thespecific problem that led to the children's removal" (Matter of Travis A. [DaisyB.], 4 AD3d 632, 633-634 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Alyssa C. [Steven C.], 93 AD3d 1111, 1112[2012]).
Despite generous time periods and extensions in which to show compliance, bothrespondents repeatedly violated various terms of the suspended judgments. For example,the father was given four opportunities to complete domestic violence counseling andfailed to do so. He did not establish a separate residence from the mother within the timeset forth in the suspended judgments. Later, and in violation of a condition of thesuspended judgments, respondents resumed residing together without approval. Themother failed to complete mental health counseling. During two attempts to have thechildren reside with her on a short-term basis, the mother was unable to care for thechildren. Visits by caseworkers during such short-term arrangements revealed a varietyof unsafe situations for the children. The mother cut both visits short and returned thechildren to foster care. Although respondents offered various explanations for theirconduct, "we defer to Family Court's credibility determinations and will not disturb itsfindings as they are supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Marquise JJ. [BrithanyJJ.], 103 AD3d 937, 938-939 [2013]).
"[W]hile respondent[s'] failure to comply with the terms and conditions of thesuspended judgment[s] does not compel the termination of [their] parental rights, [it] isstrong [*2]evidence that termination is, in fact, in the bestinterests of the children" (Matterof Ronnie P. [Danielle Q.], 85 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011] [internal quotationmarks omitted]). The children have been in foster care since a very young age.Respondents repeatedly failed to respond to efforts to assist them in addressing theirproblems, which had resulted in findings of permanent neglect and the suspendedjudgments. The record supports Family Court's observation that, instead of improving,the situation had grown worse. Respondents' evidentiary challenges to the proceedingsare unpersuasive. There is a sound and substantial basis in the record supporting FamilyCourt's determination that termination is in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Elias QQ. [StephanieQQ.], 72 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2010]). The remaining arguments have beenconsidered and are unavailing.
Peters, P.J., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.