| Matter of Jahira N.D. (Shaniqua S.S.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07729 [111 AD3d 826] |
| November 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jahira N.D., an Infant. Administration forChildren's Services et al., Respondents; Shaniqua S.S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Johnay N.D., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services et al.,Respondents; Shaniqua S.S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York, N.Y., for respondent Leake and WattsServices, Inc. Lance Corbin Kramer, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate theparental rights of the mother on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appealsfrom two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Olshansky, J.), both dated August 2,2012 (one as to each child), which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, andupon her default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, inter alia, determined that shepermanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and placedcustody and guardianship of the subject children with the Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York and Leake and Watts Services, Inc., for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that the appeals from so much of the orders as terminated the mother'sparental rights and freed the children for adoption, upon her default in appearing at thedispositional hearing, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court held separate fact-finding and dispositional hearings. The motherfailed to appear at a continuation of the fact-finding hearing, and her attorney requestedan adjournment. After the court denied that request, the mother's attorney continued toparticipate in that hearing, at the end of which the court made findings of permanentneglect. Thereafter, when [*2]the mother failed to appearat the dispositional hearing, her attorney, although present, did not participate. Thus,since the fact-finding was not made upon default, but the disposition was made upondefault (see Matter ofJaiyeola-Akintunde J., 8 AD3d 281, 281 [2004]; Matter of Vanessa M.,263 AD2d 542, 543 [1999]), the mother may appeal from the fact-finding portions of theorders, which found that she had permanently neglected the subject children, but notfrom the dispositional portions of the orders, which terminated her parental rights andplaced custody and guardianship of the subject children with the Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York and Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (hereinafter Leakeand Watts), for the purpose of adoption (see Matter of Amber Megan D., 54 AD3d 338, 338 [2008];Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d at 543).
At the fact-finding hearing, Leake and Watts established by clear and convincingevidence that, despite its diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationshipbetween the mother and each of the subject children, the mother failed to plan for theirfuture (see Matter of TarmaraF.J. [Jaineen J.], 108 AD3d 543, 543 [2013]). Accordingly, Leake and Wattsmet its burden of proving that the mother permanently neglected her children (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]; Matter of Angel H. [Omayra G.], 107 AD3d 891, 892[2013]; Matter of Kevin L.[Jose L.L.], 102 AD3d 695, 696 [2013]; Matter of Shamika K.L.N. [Melvin S.L.], 101 AD3d 729,730-731 [2012]).
Moreover, at the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court did not err in denying therequest of the mother's attorney for an adjournment when the mother failed to appear atthe continuation of that hearing (see Matter of Lillian D.L., 29 AD3d 583, 584 [2006]; cf. Matter of Assatta N.P. [NelsonL.], 92 AD3d 945, 945 [2012]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ.,concur.