| Matter of Madelyn D. (Direll D.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08480 [112 AD3d 1165] |
| December 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Madelyn D. and Others, Children Allegedto be Permanently Neglected. Broome County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Direll D., Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Kuredin Eytina, Broome County Department of Social Services, Binghamton, forrespondent. Christopher A. Pogson, Binghamton, attorney for the children.
Rose, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton,J.), entered November 21, 2012, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law§ 384-b, among other things, granted petitioner's motion to revoke a suspendedjudgment, and terminated the parental rights of respondent Direll D.
Respondent Direll D. (hereinafter respondent) and respondent Madelyn YY. are themarried parents of seven children, five of whom, Nasira D., Isidra D., Direll D., MadelynD. and Corvious D. (born in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively) (hereinaftercollectively referred to as the children), are the subjects of this proceeding. In 2008, thechildren were removed from respondents' custody and Family Court determined that theywere neglected based on respondents' commission of mutual acts of domestic violence intheir presence. Thereafter, in December 2011, Family Court adjudicated them to bepermanently neglected and issued a suspended judgment for one year. In March 2012,petitioner moved to revoke the suspended [*2]judgmentand terminate respondents' parental rights based upon allegations that they violatedconditions of the judgment. Following a hearing, Family Court determined thatrespondent had violated certain conditions imposed on him and concluded thattermination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests.[FN*] Respondent now appeals.
Respondent does not contest Family Court's determination that he violated variousterms of the suspended judgment. Instead, he claims that the evidence does not support afinding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Wedisagree. The purpose of the suspended judgment is "to provide a parent who has beenfound to have permanently neglected his or her child with 'a brief grace period withinwhich to become a fit parent with whom the child can be safely reunited' " (Matter of Clifton ZZ. [LatriceZZ.], 75 AD3d 683, 683 [2010], quoting Matter of Elias QQ. [Stephanie QQ.], 72 AD3d 1165, 1166[2010]). While not determinative, the failure to comply with the terms of a suspendedjudgment is considered " 'strong evidence that termination is, in fact, in the best interestsof the children' " (Matter ofCole WW. [Amanda WW.], 106 AD3d 1408, 1410 [2013], lv denied 21NY3d 865 [2013], quoting Matter of Ronnie P. [Danielle Q.], 85 AD3d 1246, 1247[2011]).
Here, as part of the suspended judgment, a no-contact order of protection was issuedand respondent was required to undergo substance abuse screening and maintain stablehousing and employment. Respondent violated the order of protection, he failed tocomplete a substance abuse evaluation and he did not contest petitioner's evidence thathe had no identifiable source of income or stable residence. In considering whethertermination was in the children's best interests, Family Court appropriately consideredtheir lengthy placement in foster care, as well as respondent's apparent unwillingness toaddress the issues that resulted in their placement in any meaningful manner and takeappropriate steps to have them returned to his custody (see Matter of Cole WW.[Amanda WW.], 106 AD3d at 1410; Matter of Alexandria A. [Ann B.], 93 AD3d 1105, 1107[2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 805 [2012]). Under all of the circumstances here, wefind Family Court's determination that termination of respondent's parental rights was inthe best interests of the children to be supported by a sound and substantial basis in therecord and we decline to disturb it (see Matter of Alexandria A. [Ann B.], 93AD3d at 1107; Matter of Clifton ZZ. [Latrice ZZ.], 75 AD3d at 685; Matterof Elias QQ. [Stephanie QQ.], 72 AD3d at 1167).
Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote *: Madelyn YY. executeda judicial surrender of the children.