| Matter of Alexandryia M.B. (Heather C.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06337 [130 AD3d 1022] |
| July 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Alexandryia M.B. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Heather C.,Appellant. |
Arza R. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Randall J. Ratje ofcounsel), for respondent.
Heather A. Fig, Bayport, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.),dated September 13, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, without a hearing,granted the petitioner's motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b (b)(6) for a finding that reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the subject child wereno longer required.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
A petitioning agency is required to make "diligent efforts" to encourage andstrengthen the relationship between a neglected child and his or her parent (SocialServices Law § 384-b [7] [a]). However, an agency is relieved of having toshow those efforts in certain circumstances, such as when the parental rights of thesubject parent with respect to a sibling have been involuntarily terminated (Family Ct Act§ 1039-b [b] [6]). Here, the petitioner demonstrated that the mother'sparental rights had already been terminated with respect to the subject child's half siblingand the mother failed to show that providing reasonable efforts to reunite her with thesubject child would be in the child's best interests, not contrary to the child's health andsafety, and likely to result in reunification of parent and child in the foreseeable future.Under the circumstances, the Family Court acted properly in relieving the petitioner of itsobligation to make reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the subject child (see Matter of Skyler C. [SatimaC.], 106 AD3d 816 [2013]). Moreover, the court did not err in its allocation ofthe burdens of proof in reaching that determination (see id.). Nor did the court errin deciding the motion without a hearing inasmuch as the mother's answering papers didnot establish that any genuine issue of fact existed (see Matter of Harmony P. v Christopher Q., 95 AD3d 1608[2012]).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal,Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.