In re Aliyah Julia N.

• Decision Date: 17 February 2011
• Parties: In re ALIYAH JULIA N., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Cecelia Lee N., Respondent-Appellant, Harlem Dowling-Westside Center, Petitioner-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

917 N.Y.S.2d 166

81 A.D.3d 519

In re ALIYAH JULIA N., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Cecelia Lee N., Respondent-Appellant, Harlem Dowling-Westside Center, Petitioner-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 17, 2011.

Julian A. Hertz, Larchmont, for appellant.

Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Waksberg of counsel), and Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (Theodore K. Cheng of counsel), attorneys for the child.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about November 13, 2009, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect against respondent mother, terminated respondent's parental rights to the subject child and transferred the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed as to the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agency made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, including working with respondent to formulate a service plan, maintaining frequent contact with her, scheduling visits with the child, and referring respondent for, inter alia, parenting skills classes and domestic violence counseling, and that, despite these efforts, respondent failed to complete the necessary programs and maintain meaningful contact with the child and plan for the child's future (Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [f]; § 384-b[3][g][i]; Matter of Aisha C., 58 A.D.3d 471, 871 N.Y.S.2d 112 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 706, 879 N.Y.S.2d 53, 906 N.E.2d 1087 [2009] ). "[T]he agency is not charged with a guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments" ( Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 385, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 [1984] ).

Respondent did not appear at the dispositional hearing and did not move to vacate her default. No appeal lies from an orderentered on default ( see Matter of Joei R., 302 A.D.2d 334, 756 N.Y.S.2d 516 [2003]; lv. dismissed in part, denied in part 100 N.Y.2d 575, 764 N.Y.S.2d 383, 796 N.E.2d 474 [2003] ). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that the child's...