| Matter of Justice C. (Wanda C.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00755 [124 AD3d 885] |
| January 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Justice C. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Wanda C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Justine C. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Wanda C.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Jeremiah C. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Wanda C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matterof Janaysha W. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Wanda C.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) |
Marina M. Martielli, East Quogue, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Brian B. Mulholland ofcounsel), for respondent.
James Patrick McCarrick, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child Justice C.
Mary C. Pelaez, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the children Justine C., Jeremiah C.,and Janaysha W.
Appeals from two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (John Kelly, J.), both dated December 20, 2013. The first order, after fact-findingand dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchildren, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred the guardianship andcustody of the subject children to the petitioner Suffolk County Department of SocialServices for the purpose of adoption. The second order, after fact-finding anddispositional hearings, found that the mother abandoned the subject children, terminatedthe mother's parental rights, and transferred the guardianship and custody of the subjectchildren to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption.
[*2] Ordered that the orders areaffirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence at the dispositional hearing established beyond a reasonable doubt thatthe continued custody of the subject children by the mother is likely to result in seriousemotional or physical damage to the children pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act(see 25 USC § 1912 [f]). Moreover, the Family Court properlydetermined that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating themother's parental rights and freeing them for adoption by their foster parents (see Matter of Jalil U. [RachelL.-U.], 122 AD3d 869 [2014]; Matter of Yamilette M.G. [Marlene M.], 118 AD3d 698,700 [2014]; Matter of Joshua E.S.-H. [Tanya L.S.], 97 AD3d 589, 589 [2012]). Contrary to the mother'scontention, a suspended judgment was not appropriate in light of her lack of insight intoher problems and her failure to address the primary issues which led to the children'sremoval in the first instance (seeMatter of Christopher T. [Margarita V.], 94 AD3d 900, 901 [2012]; Matterof Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011]; Matter of Kyle K. [Harry K.],72 AD3d 1592, 1593-1594 [2010]).
The mother contends that she should have been permitted to voluntarily surrender thesubject children conditioned upon her ability to maintain post-termination contact andvisitation with them. However, the record does not support the mother's contention thatshe was prepared to voluntarily surrender the subject children (see Matter of Hailey ZZ. [RickyZZ.], 19 NY3d 422, 437-438 [2012]).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Austin, Roman andLaSalle, JJ., concur.