| Matter of Davina R.M.R.L. (Jennifer A.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 09132 [123 AD3d 1126] |
| December 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Davina R.M.R.L. Forestdale, Inc., etal., Respondents; Jennifer A., Appellant. |
John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York, N.Y. (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), forrespondent Forestdale, Inc.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Jess Rao ofcounsel), attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, QueensCounty (Margaret P. McGowan, J.), dated November 12, 2013. The order, afterfact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected thesubject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship ofthe child to Forestdale, Inc., and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children'sServices of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchild (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Contrary to themother's contention, the petitioner Forestdale, Inc., established by clear and convincingevidence that it made diligent efforts to assist the mother in maintaining contact with thechild and planning for the child's future (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368, 373 [1984]). These effortsincluded scheduling and facilitating visitation, developing a service plan, makingreferrals for mental health evaluation and treatment programs, making referrals forparenting skills and anger management classes, advising the mother as to how to obtainhousing and a source of income, encouraging the mother to comply with the service plan,and warning the mother of the consequences of noncompliance (see SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at142-143; Matter of Beyonce H.[Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168 [2011]; Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 AD3d 832[2010]; Matter of Arthur C.,66 AD3d 1009 [2009]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for thechild's future by failing to complete the necessary programs and by failing to take steps tosecure appropriate housing or a source of income (see Social Services Law§ 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168[2011]). To the extent that the mother did attend any parenting or anger managementclasses, she never gained insight as to why she needed to attend those classes (seeMatter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 AD3d at 833; Matter of Daniel A.G. [JoseRicardo G.], 78 AD3d 831, 831-832 [2010]). Accordingly, the Family Courtcorrectly found that the child was permanently neglected (see Matter of Beyonce H.[Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168 [2011]; Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. [Jose G.], 78 AD3d 832[2010]).
Moreover, based on the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, the FamilyCourt properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served byterminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption by her fosterparent, with whom she had been residing since birth (see Matter of Daniel A.G. [JoseRicardo G.], 78 AD3d at 831-832). Contrary to the mother's contention, the entry ofa suspended judgment was not appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see Matter of Anthony R. [JuliannA.], 90 AD3d 1055 [2011]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d1087 [2011]). Eng, P.J., Mastro, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.