| Matter of Amonte M. (Mary M.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08634 [112 AD3d 937] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amonte M. Suffolk County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Mary M., Appellant. |
—[*1] Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Karin A. Bohrer ofcounsel), for respondent. Margaret Schaefler, Hauppauge, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and Social Services Law§ 384-b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanentneglect, the mother appeals from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Freundlich, J.), dated December 14, 2012, which, after a fact-finding hearing,found that she permanently neglected the subject child, and (2) an order of disposition ofthe same court, also dated December 14, 2012, which, after a dispositional hearing,terminated her parental rights and committed the guardianship and custody of the child tothe petitioner and the child's foster parent for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as the fact-finding order was superseded by the order of disposition and isbrought up for review on the appeal from the order of disposition; and it is further,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 petitioner established by clear andconvincing evidence that the mother permanently neglected the subject child (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The petitioner presented evidence that itmade diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, inter alia,providing the mother with multiple referrals for substance abuse and mental healthclinics, providing her with the means to travel to the clinics, and consistently attemptingto maintain phone and letter correspondence with her (see Matter of Mahaadai D.H.[Rhonda L.H.], 110 AD3d 878 [2013]; Matter of Kevin L. [Jose L.L.], 102 AD3d 695 [2013]; Matter of Carmine A.B. [NicoleB.], 101 AD3d 711 [2012]; Matter of Damian D.T.B., 294 AD2d 359[2002]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future by notcompleting any of the substance abuse and psychotherapy programs to which she wasreferred, testing positive for illegal drugs on one occasion, and not obtaining suitablehousing for herself and the child (see Matter of [*2]Carimine A.B. [Nicole B.], 101AD3d 711 [2012]; Matter of Peter C., Jr. [PeterC.], 88 AD3d 702 [2011]).
Further, the Family Court did not err in drawing the "strongest possible negativeinference" against the mother that the record would allow for her failure to testify at thefact-finding hearing (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip DeG., 59 NY2d 137, 141 [1983]; Matter of Amanda Ann B., 38 AD3d 537 [2007]).
Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that termination of the mother'sparental rights, rather than the entry of a suspended judgment, was in the child's bestinterests (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Precious D.A. [Tasha A.], 110 AD3d 789[2013]; Matter of Walter D.H.[Zaire L.], 91 AD3d 950 [2012]; Matter of Anthony R. [Juliann A.], 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]).
The mother's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Mastro, J.P., Roman, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.