In re Destiny B. (Anonymous). Suffolk Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

• Decision Date: 20 August 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05869,990 N.Y.S.2d 866,120 A.D.3d 673
• Parties: In the Matter of DESTINY B. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Daphne T. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

120 A.D.3d 673

990 N.Y.S.2d 866

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05869

In the Matter of DESTINY B. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Daphne T. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

Aug. 20, 2014.

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Randall J. Ratje of counsel), for respondent.

Daniel I. Schwager, Westhampton Beach, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from two orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), both dated May 2, 2013, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that she permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child. The petitioner agency established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship ( see Matter of Amonte M. [Mary M.], 112 A.D.3d 937, 938, 977 N.Y.S.2d 90;Matter of Tarmara F.J. [Jaineen J.], 108 A.D.3d 543, 543, 969 N.Y.S.2d 119;Matter of Darrnell G. [Robin Denise H.], 88 A.D.3d 789, 790, 930 N.Y.S.2d 908). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the child's future ( see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [c]; Matter of Darrnell G. [Robin Denise H.], 88 A.D.3d at 790, 930 N.Y.S.2d 908;Matter of Deajah Shabri T., 44 A.D.3d 1060, 1061, 844 N.Y.S.2d 410). Contrary to the mother's contention, testimony relating to matters occurring subsequent to the filing of a petition for permanent neglect is inadmissible during the fact-finding stage of the proceeding ( see Family Ct. Act § 624; Matter of Christopher II., 222 A.D.2d 900, 902, 635 N.Y.S.2d 747;Matter of Diana S., 68 A.D.2d 915, 414 N.Y.S.2d 197).

The mother's contention relating to an arrest in August 2012 is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

Moreover, the Family Court properly determined that termination of the mother's parental rights, rather than the entry of a...