| Matter of Angelina Jessie Pierre L. (Anne Elizabeth PierreL.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00881 [114 AD3d 471] |
| February 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Angelina Jessie Pierre L. a Child Allegedto be Permanently Neglected. Anne Elizabeth Pierre L., Appellant; St. Vincent'sServices, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, Mineloa (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for respondent. Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the child.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about January 29,2013, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother permanentlyneglected the subject child, terminated respondent's parental rights and committed thecare and custody of the child to petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services forthe purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The finding that respondent permanently neglected the child is supported by clearand convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g] [i]; [4][d]; [7] [a]). The record shows that the agency exercised diligent efforts to encourage andstrengthen the parental relationship by arranging for frequent visitation, referringrespondent for mental health counseling, anger management, and parenting skills forchildren with special needs, and developing a plan for appropriate services for the child,and that nevertheless respondent failed to compete her service plan within the statutorilyrelevant time frame (see Matterof Danielle Nevaeha S.E. [Crystal Delores M.], 107 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept2013]; Matter of Shaianna MaeF. [Tsipora S.], 69 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2010]). Although she completed manyof the services after the petition was filed, respondent failed to gain insight into herparenting problems, to understand her daughter's special needs or to demonstrate that shehad the ability to care for the child (see Matter of Janell J. [Shanequa J.], 88 AD3d 512 [1stDept 2011]). Respondent also failed to attend a majority of the child's medicalappointments although the agency invited her to attend, and she was unable to havepositive interaction with the child during her visits. In any event, the visitation does notpreclude a finding of permanent neglect, in view of respondent's failure to plan for thechild's future (see Matter ofJonathan Jose T., 44 AD3d 508, 508-509 [1st Dept 2007]).
Respondent's request for a suspended judgment is improperly raised for the first timeon appeal (see Matter of Jules S.[Julio S.], 96 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 814[2012]). In any event, a preponderance of the evidence supports the determination that itwas in [*2]the child's best interests to be freed foradoption by the termination of respondent's parental rights (see Matter of Star LeslieW., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The child has resided with her foster parentssince she was five days old, and has bonded with them, and the foster parents wish toadopt her and are capable of handling her myriad special needs (see Matter of Fernando AlexanderB. [Simone Anita W.], 85 AD3d 658 [1st Dept 2011]). Respondent failed todemonstrate that she could ensure that the child's special needs would be met.Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.