| Matter of Jalil U. (Rachel L.-U.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08035 [122 AD3d 869] |
| November 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Jalil U. Suffolk County Department ofSocial Services, Respondent; Rachel L.-U., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Josiah U. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Rachel L.-U.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Orianna U. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Rachel L.-U., Appellant. (Proceeding No.3.) |
Arza R. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Samantha N.McEachin of counsel), for respondent.
J. Gary Waldvogel, Smithtown, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Glenn Gucciardo, Northport, N.Y., for nonparties Walter C. (Anonymous)and Diana C. (Anonymous).
In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b toterminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from anorder of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich,J.), dated May 22, 2013, which, upon remittitur from this Court by decision and orderdated February 6, 2013 (seeMatter of Jalil U. [Rachel L.-U.], 103 AD3d 658 [2013]), and upon a decisionof the same court dated May 21, 2013, made after a hearing, found that she permanentlyneglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and committed theguardianship and custody of the children to the petitioner for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that, on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision datedMay 21, 2013, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the order of fact-finding anddisposition dated May 22, 2013 (see CPLR 5512 [a]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition dated May 22, 2013, is [*2]affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the subject childrenwould be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the children foradoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Yamilette M.G. [Marlene M.], 118 AD3d698, 700 [2014]; Matter ofJoshua E. S.-H. [Tanya L.S.], 97 AD3d 589, 589 [2012]; Matter of Gordon Lee R., 49AD3d 882, 883 [2008]). Contrary to the mother's contention, a suspended judgmentwas not appropriate in light of her lack of insight into her problems and her failure toaddress the primary issues which led to the children's removal in the first instance (see Matter of Christopher T.[Margarita V.], 94 AD3d 900, 901 [2012]; Matter of Zechariah J. [ValrickJ.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011]; Matter of Kyle K. [Harry K.], 72 AD3d 1592, 1593-1594[2010]; cf. Matter ofChristopher Lee B., 65 AD3d 549, 550 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohenand Duffy, JJ., concur.