| Matter of Angel H. (Omayra G.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04605 [107 AD3d 891] |
| June 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Angel H., Also Known as Angel L.H. andAnother. Mercy First, Respondent; Omayra G., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Carmen G., Petitioner, v Omayra G.,Appellant, and Administration for Children's Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Janet Neustaetter ofcounsel), attorney for the child. Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), fornonparties Ramonita C. (Anonymous) and Pedro C. (Anonymous).
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b toterminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, and a relatedcustody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limitedby her brief, from stated portions of an order of fact-finding and disposition of theFamily Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated January 4, 2012, which, among otherthings, upon a decision of the same court dated November 30, 2011, made after ahearing, found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parentalrights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to Mercy First andthe Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the City of New Yorkfor the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealedfrom, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchild. Contrary to the mother's contention, the petitioner established by clear andconvincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parentalrelationship (see [*2]Social Services Law §384-b [7]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]). Theseefforts included repeated referrals of the mother to drug treatment programs andindividual counseling, the monitoring of her progress in these programs, and repeatedwarnings to the mother that if she failed to attend and complete a drug treatmentprogram, she could permanently lose custody of the subject child (see Matter of Temple S.M. [TriciaM.], 97 AD3d 681, 681-682 [2012]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed toplan for the child's future (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986];Matter of Jamie M., 63 NY2d 388, 393 [1984]; Matter of Orlando F., 40NY2d 103, 110 [1976]; Matter of Temple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 AD3d at681-682; Matter of Darrnell G.[Robin Denise H.], 88 AD3d 789, 790 [2011]). Accordingly, the petitioner metits burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother permanentlyneglected the subject child (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a];Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 136).
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properlydetermined that it was in the best interests of the subject child to terminate the mother'sparental rights (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147; Matter ofTemple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 AD3d at 682; Matter of Malen Sansa V. [Nancy J.], 70 AD3d 707, 708[2010]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon,Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.