| Matter of Precious D.A. (Tasha A.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06560 [110 AD3d 789] |
| October 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Precious D.A. Administration forChildren's Services et al., Respondents; Tasha A., Appellant. In the Matter of Desire A.,Also Known as Desiree A. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents;Tasha A., Appellant. |
—[*1] Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York, N.Y. (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), forrespondent Children's Village. Vivienne M. Hewitt, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminateparental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from two ordersof fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child) of the Family Court, Kings County(Turbow, J.), both dated September 19, 2012, which, after fact-finding and dispositionalhearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject children, terminated herparental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to thepetitioner and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of the Cityof New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchildren (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Contrary to themother's contention, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that itmade diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, inter alia,scheduling and providing transportation for visitation, developing a service plan, makingreferrals for parenting skills and anger management classes, making referrals for mentalhealth evaluations, encouraging the mother to comply with the service plan, and warningthe mother of the consequences of noncompliance (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984];Matter of Kira J. [LakishaJ.], 108 AD3d 541 [2013]; Matter of Joseph W. [Monica W.], 95 AD3d 1347 [2012];Matter of Austin C. [AliciaY.], 77 AD3d 938 [2010]). The petitioner also established that, despite itsdiligent efforts, the mother failed, for a period [*2]ofmore than one year, to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the children, thatshe failed to visit consistently and otherwise failed to comply with the service plan(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Tarmara F.J. [JaineenJ.], 108 AD3d 543 [2013]; Matter of Christina M.R. [Lynette Cassandra C.], 101 AD3d1021 [2012]; Matter ofTemple S.M. [Tricia M.], 97 AD3d 681 [2012]).
Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that termination of the mother'sparental rights, rather than the entry of a suspended judgment, was in the children's bestinterests (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Walter D.H. [Zaire L.], 91 AD3d 950 [2012]; Matter of Anthony R. [JuliannA.], 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087 [2011]).Skelos, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.