| Matter of Elasia A.D.B. (Crystal D.G.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04188 [118 AD3d 778] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Elasia A.D.B. MercyFirst et al.,Respondents; Crystal D.G., Appellant. In the Matter of Leanna I.P. MercyFirst et al.,Respondents; Crystal D.G., Appellant. In the Matter of Elijah L.M. MercyFirst et al.,Respondents; Crystal D.G., Appellant. |
Cheryl Charles-Duval, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Warren & Warren, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira L. Eras of counsel), forrespondent MercyFirst.
Scott A. Rosenberg, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler, Laura Morris,and Judith Waksberg of counsel), attorney for the children.
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b toterminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals fromthree orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow,J.) (one as to each child), all dated January 15, 2013, which, after fact-finding anddispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject children,terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the childrento MercyFirst and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services of theCity of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The petitioning agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it madediligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the mother and thesubject children by meeting with the mother to review her service plan, discussing theimportance of compliance, providing referrals for drug treatment, and schedulingvisitation between the mother and the subject children (see Matter of Star LeslieW., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 381[1984]; Matter of Peter C., Jr.[Peter C.], 88 AD3d 702, 703 [2011]; Matter of Justina Rose D., 28AD3d [*2]659, 660 [2006]; Matter of "Female" V., 21AD3d 1118, 1119 [2005]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to "assume ameasure of initiative and responsibility [and] plan for the future of [her] child[ren]"(Matter of Jamie M., 63 NY2d 388, 393 [1984]) by "tak[ing] steps to correct theconditions that led to the removal of the child[ren] from [her] home" (Matter ofZechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2011] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 143; Matter ofSheila G., 61 NY2d at 392; Matter of Darryl A.H. [Olga Z.], 109 AD3d 824 [2013];Matter of Peter C., Jr. [Peter C.], 88 AD3d at 703; Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [c]). The mother's belated partial compliance with the serviceplan was insufficient to preclude a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Tarmara F.J. [JaineenJ.], 108 AD3d 543, 544 [2013]; Matter of Hadiyyah J.M. [Fatima D.R.], 91 AD3d 874, 875[2012]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d at 1088; Matter of Megan R.W. [ConnieLynn M.], 69 AD3d 737 [2010]). Accordingly, the Family Court properlygranted the petitions and terminated the mother's parental rights. Skelos, J.P., Balkin,Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.