| Matter of Mahaadai D.H. (Rhonda L.H.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06681 [110 AD3d 878] |
| October 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mahaadai D.H., an Infant, NonpartyAppellant. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Rhonda L.H. et al.,Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Naihaem D.H., an Infant.Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Rhonda L.H. Appellants.(Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Marhosheda L.H., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services et al., Respondents; Rhonda L.H. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No.3.) In the Matter of Ahsunaiya A.H., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services etal., Respondents; Rhonda L.H. et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No.4.) |
—[*1] Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant Terrance H. Larry S. Bachner, Jamaica, N.Y., for nonparty appellant Mahaadai D.H. Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent MercyFirst. Adewole Agbayewa, Fresh Meadows, N.Y., attorney for the children Naihaem D.H.,[*2]Marhosheda L.H., and Ahsunaiya A.H.
In four related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and SocialServices Law § 384-b, (1) the mother appeals, as limited by her notice of appealand brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Queens County(McGowan, J.), dated July 30, 2012, which, upon a decision of the same court datedFebruary 7, 2012, made after a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, inter alia, deniedher application for the entry of a suspended judgment and found that she neglected thesubject children, and the child Mahaadai H. separately appeals from the same order, and(2) the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition ofthe same court entered February 20, 2013, as, upon the decision and the order dated July30, 2012, terminated her parental rights and transferred the guardianship and custody ofthe subject children to MercyFirst and the Commissioner of the Administration forChildren's Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, the fatherseparately appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the orderof disposition entered February 20, 2013, as, upon the decision and those portions of theorder dated July 30, 2012, which denied his application for the entry of a suspendedjudgment and found that he neglected and abandoned the subject children, terminated hisparental rights and transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject children toMercyFirst and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of theCity of New York for the purpose of adoption, and the child Mahaadai H. separatelyappeals from so much of the order of disposition entered February 20, 2013, asterminated his parents' parental rights as to him and transferred guardianship and custodyover him to MercyFirst and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children'sServices of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the father's notice of appeal from the orderdated July 30, 2012, is deemed to be premature notice of appeal from the order ofdisposition entered February 20, 2013 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeals by the mother and the child Mahaadai H. from statedportions of the order dated July 30, 2012, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements,as the order dated July 30, 2012, was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeals by the mother and the child Mahaadai H. from theorder of disposition; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the parents permanently neglected the foursubject children. The social services agency established by clear and convincing evidencethat it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Matter of Kevin L. [JoseL.L.], 102 AD3d 695, 696 [2013]; Matter of Damian D.T.B., 294 AD2d359, 360 [2002]). The agency also established by clear and convincing evidence that theparents failed for a period of one year following the children's placement with the socialservices agency to plan for the children's future (see Social Services Law §384-b [7] [c]; Matter of DarianaK.C. [Katherine M.], 99 AD3d 899, 900-901 [2012]; Matter of Peter C., Jr. [PeterC.], 88 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]).
Further, the Family Court properly determined, as to each of the four subjectchildren, that it was in their best interest to terminate the parental rights of the mother andfather (see Matter of Victoria C.[Cassandra C.], 106 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 866[2013]; Matter of Dariana K.C. [Katherine M.], 99 AD3d at 901; Matter ofPeter C., Jr. [Peter C.], 88 AD3d at 703). Termination of parental rights as to thethree youngest children will free those children for adoption, providing them with theopportunity to have a permanent family (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299,310 [1992]; Matter of AmberD.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AD3d 865, 866 [2010]). Although it appears that theoldest child, Mahaadai, might not be adopted, termination of parental rights as to himwas appropriate as well. The entry of a suspended judgment was not appropriate in lightof the parents' lack of insight into the severity of the problems with their parenting, andtheir failure to acknowledge and address the underlying issue that led to the children'sremoval from their custody in the first place (see Matter of Amber D.C. [AngelicaC.], 79 AD3d at 866).[*3]
The remaining contentions of the parents and thechild Mahaadai either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of ourdetermination. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.