| Matter of Melisha M.H. (Sheila B.R.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05334 [119 AD3d 788] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Melisha M.H. SCO Family ofServices, Respondent; Sheila B.R., Also Known as Sheila R. and Another, Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kenyetta S.R., Also Known as Kenyetta R. andAnother. SCO Family of Services, Respondent; Sheila B.R., Also Known as Sheila R.and Another, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C, Mineola, N.Y. (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), forrespondent.
Judith Ellen Stone, Merrick, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b toterminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals fromtwo orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally,J.), (one as to each child), both dated February 20, 2013, which, after fact-finding anddispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglected the children, terminated herparental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to theCommissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and SCO Family of Servicesfor the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchildren. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it madediligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see SocialServices Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368,380-381 [1984]; Matter ofDarryl A.H. [Olga Z.], 109 AD3d 824, 824 [2013]). These efforts includedfacilitating visitation, providing the mother with referrals to drug treatment andcounseling programs, and advising the mother of the need for her to attend and completesuch [*2]programs. Despite these efforts, the motherfailed to plan for the children's future (see Matter of Darryl A.H. [Olga Z.], 109AD3d at 824; Matter of JosephW. [Monica W.], 95 AD3d 1347, 1347-1348 [2012]; Matter of Fatima G., 64 AD3d652, 653 [2009]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, most of the progress notes in the petitioner'scase file that were offered into evidence were properly admitted under the businessrecord exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of LeonRR, 48 NY2d 117, 122-123 [1979]; Matter of "Male" G., 97 Misc 2d 283,284 [Fam Ct, NY County 1978]). In any event, even if some of the progress notes wereimproperly admitted, the mother's own testimony was sufficient to support a finding ofpermanent neglect (see Matter of Lindsay N., 300 AD2d 216, 217 [2002]).
Furthermore, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, the FamilyCourt properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate themother's parental rights (seeMatter of Jewels E.R. [Julien R.], 104 AD3d 773, 773-774 [2013]; Matter of Malen Sansa V. [NancyJ.], 70 AD3d 707, 708 [2010]; Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2006];Matter of Desire Star H., 202 AD2d 582, 584 [1994]).
The mother's remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal(see Matter of Julian J.C. [JuanC.], 96 AD3d 937, 938 [2012]; Matter of Yamillette G. [Marlene M.], 74 AD3d 1066,1068 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.