NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 18, 2008
IN RE EVELYSE LUZ S., A DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., AND EVELYN G., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,
ST. DOMINIC'S HOME, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Buckley, Moskowitz, Renwick, JJ.
While the agency was not required to make reasonable efforts to return the child to her home because respondent's parental rights to two of her other children had been involuntarily terminated (see Family Court Act §§ 1039-b[a], [b]), it established by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen respondent's relationship with the child and that despite these efforts respondent failed to plan for the child's future (see Social Services Law § 384-b; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368 ). The agency's service plan required respondent to visit with the child regularly, to complete a drug treatment program and remain sober, and to keep the agency apprised of her whereabouts. Respondent's attendance at the visits arranged by the agency was inconsistent, she failed to complete a drug program, and she failed to remain in contact with the agency, which was able to locate her eventually through its own efforts.
The finding that termination of respondent's parental rights is in the child's best interests was supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the child has been with the foster mother since infancy and has bonded with her and her other children and that the foster mother wishes to adopt the child (see Matter of Elizabeth Amanda T., 44 AD3d 507 ; Matter of Taaliyah Simone S.D., 28 AD3d 371 ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.