| Matter of Jeremy J.M. (Brandy T.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04200 [118 AD3d 796] |
| June 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jeremy J.M. Westchester CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Brandy T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.)In the Matter of Virginia S.M. Westchester County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Brandy T., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jeremy J.M.Westchester County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Arthur M., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Virginia S.M. Westchester County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Arthur M., Appellant. (Proceeding No.4.) |
Evelyn K. Isaac, Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y., for appellant Brandy T.
Helene Migdon Greenberg, Elmsford, N.Y., for appellant Arthur M.
Robert F. Meehan, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (James Castro-Blancoand Eileen Campbell O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.
Jo-Ann Cambareri, Tarrytown, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b toterminate the parental rights of the mother to her two children on the ground ofpermanent neglect, and two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law§ 384-b to terminate the parental rights of the father to the same children onthe ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from two orders of fact-finding anddisposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Colangelo, J.) (one as to eachchild), both entered November 28, 2012, and the father separately appeals from twoorders of fact-[*2]finding and disposition of the samecourt (one as to each child), both also entered November 28, 2012, which, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, respectively found that they permanentlyneglected the subject children and that termination of their parental rights was in the bestinterests of the subject children, terminated their parental rights, and transferred custodyand guardianship of the children to the Westchester County Department of SocialServices for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
Contrary to the contentions of the mother and the father, the Family Court properlydetermined that there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother and the fathereach permanently neglected the subject children, who had been in foster care for sevenyears, by failing to plan for their return (see Matter of Todd Andre'D. [Kenyetta L.], 88 AD3d 876,876 [2011]; Matter of KendraD. [Amanda D.], 81 AD3d 644 [2011]; Matter of Gregory Michael M.,167 AD2d 469, 470-471 [1990]).
The record established that the petitioner made diligent efforts to help each parentcomply with his or her respective plan for reunification with the subject children. Withrespect to the mother, despite individual therapy, parenting classes that included lessonsin the appropriate methods of discipline, and regular visits, the mother still had notmastered the skills taught in the parenting skills classes, and had difficulty appropriatelyinteracting with the subject children and properly disciplining them (see Matter ofTodd Andre'D. [Kenyetta L.], 88 AD3d at 876).
The mother's contention that the petitioner failed to tailor its diligent efforts toaddress her mental disability is not preserved for appellate review (see Matter of Emerald L.C. [DavidC.], 101 AD3d 1679, 1680 [2012]; Matter of Irene C. [Reina M.], 68 AD3d 416 [2009]) and,in any event, is without merit. The petitioner facilitated supervised visits between themother and the subject children in a home-like setting in which the supervisor providedfeedback to the mother with respect to her interaction with the children and maderecommendations as to proper parenting. The petitioner also ensured that the mothercompleted additional parenting classes.
With respect to the father, the petitioner established that it also made diligent effortsto help him comply with his service plan for reunification with the subject children(see Matter of Emerald L.C. [David C.], 101 AD3d at 1680; Matter of IreneC. [Reina M.], 68 AD3d at 416). Pursuant to that plan, the father was required, interalia, to complete group therapy and parenting classes, and to attend sex offendertreatment sessions. Moreover, the same caseworker who supervised the visits for themother also supervised the father's visits, and her background included the study ofpedophilia and cognitive processes in abnormal psychology. Despite these services, thefather had not completed group therapy at the time the petition was filed, and stilldemonstrated inappropriate sexual proclivities that put the children at risk.
The father's contention that the petitioner failed to tailor its parenting classrequirements to address his "developmental disabilities" is not preserved for appellatereview (see Matter of Emerald L.C. [David C.], 101 AD3d at 1680; Matter ofIrene C. [Reina M.], 68 AD3d at 416). In any event, the contention is without merit,because the petitioner did not dispute that the father successfully completed the requiredparenting class, and did not raise any issues in connection with parenting classes asgrounds for relief.
Finally, the petitioner also established that the termination of the parental rights ofeach parent and the freeing of the children for adoption was in the best interests of thesubject children (see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Precious D.A. [TashaA.], 110 AD3d 789, 790 [2013]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Duffy, JJ.,concur.