| Matter of Danielle Nevaeha S.E. (Crystal Delores M.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04547 [107 AD3d 527] |
| June 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Danielle Nevaeha S.E., a Child Alleged tobe Permanently Neglected. Crystal Delores M., Appellant; Edwin Gould Services forChildren and Families et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondents. Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered onor about August 24, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, upona fact-finding determination that respondent mother permanently neglected the subjectchild, terminated the mother's parental rights and committed custody and guardianship ofthe child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Administration for Children'sServices for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding that the mother permanently neglected her daughter was established byclear and convincing evidence. Despite diligent efforts made by the agency to encourageand strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed during the relevant time periodto plan for the future of the child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]). Inparticular, the record shows that petitioner met regularly with the mother to prepare aservice plan and review her progress, arranged visitation between the mother and herchild, and encouraged the mother to complete her drug treatment program. These effortsnotwithstanding, the mother failed to complete her service plan within the statutorilyrelevant time frame (see Matterof Jules S. [Julio S.], 96 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d814 [2012]; Matter of Dade Wynn F., 291 AD2d 218 [1st Dept 2002], lvdenied 98 NY2d 604 [2002]).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that it was in the bestinterests of the child to terminate the mother's parental rights rather than issue asuspended judgment (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148[1984]). Here, the child has lived most of her life with her foster parent with whom shemaintains a positive relationship and who wants to adopt her and her older siblings. Thatthe mother has made efforts to remain drug free does not warrant a different finding[*2]under the circumstances (see Matter of Jada Serenity H.,60 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Rutherford Roderick T., 4 AD3d 213 [1st Dept2004]).
We have considered the mother's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Feinman, JJ.