| Matter of Isis M. (Deeanna C.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00892 [114 AD3d 480] |
| February 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Isis M. and Others, Children Alleged to bePermanently Neglected. Deeanna C., Appellant; Heartshare Human Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Wingate, Kearney & Cullen LLP, Brooklyn (Allyson L. Stein of counsel), forrespondent. Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Nicole Barnum of counsel),attorney for the children.
Orders of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K.Knipps, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2013, which, upon a finding that respondentmother permanently neglected the subject children, terminated respondent's parentalrights, and committed the custody of the children to the Commissioner of Social Servicesand petitioner agency for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the court's findings that, despite the agency'sdiligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship with the threechildren, respondent failed to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the children(see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). The agency explained theimportance of visitation, encouraged respondent to visit, and facilitated visitation; yetrespondent failed to attend approximately one half of the scheduled visits and offeredinsubstantial excuses for her failure (see Matter of Paul Antoine Devontae R. [Paul R.], 78 AD3d610 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; Matter of EmilyA., 216 AD2d 124 [1st Dept 1995]). Respondent's sporadic and inconsistentvisitation, as well as her inattention to the children observed during at least one visit,prevented her from developing close relationships with the children (see Matter of Jonathan M., 19AD3d 197 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 798 [2005]).
The agency referred respondent to an appropriate parenting class and, among otherthings, kept her informed of medical appointments for the twin boys, who have specialneeds (see Matter of DamonBruce W. [Yvonne M.G.], 81 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17NY3d 701 [2011]). Although respondent completed the parenting course, she failed toattend the twins' scheduled medical appointments, and demonstrated a lack ofunderstanding and insight into the [*2]twins' diagnoses,medications and medical treatment (see Matter of Nahia M., 39 AD3d 918 [3d Dept 2007]; Matter of Lenny R., 22 AD3d240 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]).
A preponderance of the evidence supports the court's determination that thetermination of respondent's parental rights, rather than a suspended judgment, is in thechildren's best interests (see generally Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136,147-148 [1984]). For most of their lives, the children have lived with foster families,who have appropriately provided for their needs, including the twins' special needs, andwith whom the children have developed strong relationships (see Matter of Isiah Steven A.[Anne Elizabeth Pierre L.], 100 AD3d 559 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied20 NY3d 859 [2013]; Matter of Lenny R., 22 AD3d at 240).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.