Matter of Brandon Michael R. (Wandalee R.)
2014 NY Slip Op 02854 [116 AD3d 620]
April 24, 2014
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 28, 2014


In the Matter of Brandon Michael R. and Another, ChildrenAlleged to be Permanently Neglected. Wandalee R., Appellant; Little Flower Childrenand Family Services of New York, Respondent.

[*1]Daniel R. Katz, New York, for appellant.

Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti ofcounsel), for respondent.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), attorneyfor the child Brandon Michael R.

Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the child Christopher V.

Orders of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V.Richardson, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2012, which, after a fact-findingdetermination that respondent mother had permanently neglected the subject children,terminated her parental rights and committed the custody and guardianship of thechildren to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Department of Social Servicesfor the purpose of adoption, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, thedisposition as to Brandon Michael R. vacated in its entirety, the disposition as toChristopher V. vacated only with respect to his placement, the matter remanded forreopened dispositional hearings with respect to both children, and otherwise affirmed,without costs.

There was clear and convincing evidence that the agency exerted diligent efforts toreunite the mother and the children by establishing a service plan, referring her forparenting skills and anger management programs, scheduling visitation, attempting toassist her to obtain suitable housing, and referring her for mental health therapy (seeSocial Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]). Despite these efforts, the motherfailed to complete the programs, was inconsistent with visitation, did not obtain suitablehousing, and failed to demonstrate that she was in counseling (see Matter of Racquel OliviaM., 37 AD3d 279, 280 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]).Accordingly, the court properly determined that the mother had permanently neglectedthe children.[*2]

However, the children's circumstances havechanged substantially since the dispositional hearings, as they are both in new fosterhomes. Brandon, who is 15 years old, has been in the new foster home since November2013, does not want to be adopted, and requests that the agency resume diligent efforts toreunite him with the mother. Christopher has been in a pre-adoptive foster home sinceAugust 2013, wants to be adopted, and the foster parent wants to adopt him. Newdispositional hearings are required to determine the fitness of the foster parents and thefoster homes, and whether it is in Brandon's best interests to terminate the mother'sparental rights as to him, given his refusal to consent to adoption (see DomesticRelations Law § 111 [1]; Matter of Kathleen Shaquana G. [Stephen G.], 82 AD3d610, 611 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Mentora Monique B., 44 AD3d 445, 447 [1stDept 2007]). Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark,JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.