NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 1, 2009
IN RE IRENE C., A DEPENDENT CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., AND REINA M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, CATHOLIC GUARDIAN SOCIETY AND HOME BUREAU, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and committed 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.
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman, Roman, JJ.
Respondent's contention that the petition was defective in that it did not specify the steps taken by the agency to strengthen the parent-child relationship (Family Court Act § 614[c]), is unpreserved as respondent never moved to dismiss the petition on such grounds (see e.g. Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d 367 ). Were we to review it, we would find that the allegations were more than sufficient to put respondent on notice of the nature of the proceedings against her.
Furthermore, the evidence at the hearing was clear and convincing with respect to both the agency's diligent efforts and respondent's failure to plan for her daughter. The evidence showed that the agency made diligent efforts at reunification through referral of respondent to parenting-skills workshops, domestic violence programs, counseling programs, and arranging scheduled visitations (see Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d at 368). Despite these efforts, respondent continued to deny responsibility for her past neglect of her daughter and lacked insight into her duties as a parent (see Matter of S. Children, 210 AD2d 175 , lv denied 85 NY2d 807 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.