| Matter of Nay'amya W.R. (Kiara D.) |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00197 [135 AD3d 770] |
| January 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Nay'amya W.R. Suffolk CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Kiara D.,Appellant. |
Susan A. DeNatale, Bayport, NY, for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, NY (James G. Bernet of counsel),for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Central Islip, NY, attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (David Freundlich, J.), dated September 5, 2014. The order, after fact-findingand dispositional hearings, determined that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchild, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of thechild to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose ofadoption.
Ordered that order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
In April 2014, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social ServicesLaw § 384-b, alleging that the mother permanently neglected the subjectchild. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court determined that themother permanently neglected the child, terminated her parental rights, and freed thechild for adoption by the foster mother. The mother appeals.
The petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it exerciseddiligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship by, inter alia, scheduling visitsbetween the mother and the child, providing referrals for court-ordered programs, andadvising the mother of the importance of complying with the court's directives (see Matter of Angel M.R.J. [RachelR.], 124 AD3d 657 [2015]; Matter of Kaydance H.G. [Carmen M.], 122 AD3d 630[2014]; Matter of Dianelys T.W.[Malik W.], 121 AD3d 801 [2014]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed toplan for the return of the child by not regularly attending the individual therapy andtherapeutic visitation with the child, which was recommended in the forensic parentingevaluation with which the mother was required to comply (see Matter of Angel M.R.J. [RachelR.], 124 AD3d 657 [2015]; Matter of Kaydance H.G. [Carmen M.], 122 AD3d 630[2014]; Matter of Amonte M.[Mary M.], 112 AD3d 937 [2013]; Matter of Neal TT. [Deborah UU.], 97 AD3d 869 [2012]).Although the mother completed several of the required programs, she never obtained safeand suitable housing for her and the child. Partial compliance with the court-orderedprograms is insufficient to preclude a finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Kaydance H.G.[Carmen M.], 122 AD3d 630 [2014]; Matter of Amonte M. [Mary M.], 112 AD3d 937 [2013];Matter of Shamika K.L.N.[Melvin S.L.], 101 AD3d 729, 731 [2012]). Accordingly, the Family Courtproperly determined that the mother had permanently neglected the subject child.
The Family Court also properly determined that it was in the child's best interests toterminate the mother's parental rights, rather than to enter a suspended judgment, and tofree the child for adoption by the foster mother (see Family Ct Act§ 631; Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]; Matter of Yamilette M.G. [MarleneM.], 118 AD3d 698, 700 [2014]; Matter of Jalil U. [Rachel L.-U.], 103 AD3d 658, 659[2013]; Matter of Violetta K. v Mary K., 306 AD2d 480 [2003]). Chambers, J.P.,Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.