| Matter of Giavanna M. (Cynthia M.-B.) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08417 [133 AD3d 760] |
| November 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Giavanna M. Putnam CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Cynthia M.-B., Appellant. (Proceeding No.1.) In the Matter of Italya M. Putnam County Department of Social Services,Respondent; Cynthia M.-B., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
Pat Bonanno & Associates, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Faye Thorpe, Carmel, N.Y., for respondent.
Elizabeth Shollenberger, Pleasantville, N.Y., attorney for the children.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, PutnamCounty (James F. Reitz, J.), entered October 28, 2014. The order, after fact-finding anddispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject children,terminated her parental rights, and committed the children to the custody andguardianship of the Putnam County Department of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligentefforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the mother and the subjectchildren (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; Matter of StarLeslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142-143 [1984]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d368, 373 [1984]; Matter ofDarryl A.H. [Olga Z.], 109 AD3d 824 [2013]). These efforts includedfacilitating visitation; repeatedly providing the mother with referrals for therapyappointments and parenting classes, reminders to attend those appointments and classes,and the necessary transportation to insure her attendance; attempting to maintain contactwith her by numerous telephone calls and frequent correspondence; and assisting her inapplying for Section 8 and Social Security disability insurance benefits (see Matter of Chanel C. [VanessaN.], 118 AD3d 826 [2014]; Matter of Precious D.A. [Tasha A.], 110 AD3d 789 [2013];Matter of Darryl A.H. [OlgaZ.], 109 AD3d 824 [2013]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan forthe children's future (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c];Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 840 [1986]; Matter of Ariana N.T. [AnaD.], 121 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2014]; Matter of Elasia A.D.B. [Crystal D.G.], 118 AD3d 778,779 [2014]; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088[2011]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that [*2]the mother had permanently neglected the children, and thatit was in the children's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights (see Matter of Tarmara F.J. [JaineenJ.], 108 AD3d 543, 544 [2013]).
The mother's contention that the Family Court erred in failing to suppress certainevidence which she alleged was obtained illegally is without merit. The State has an"enormous interest in protecting the welfare of children" (Matter of Diane P., 110AD2d 354, 354 [1985]). Here, application of the exclusionary rule to prevent the courtfrom considering evidence of permanent neglect, pertaining here to the condition of themother's home, would have a detrimental impact upon the fact-finding process and theState's interest in protecting the welfare of children, which outweighs the deterrent effectof applying the exclusionary rule (see Matter of T. Children, 123 AD2d 390,392-393 [1986]; Matter of Diane P., 110 AD2d at 354; Matter of Young v Young, 84AD3d 972 [2011]).
The mother's contention that she is entitled to a suspended judgment pursuant toFamily Court Act § 633 is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.