In re Fatoumata D.

• Decision Date: 13 November 2012
• Citation: 954 N.Y.S.2d 31,100 A.D.3d 464,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07584
• Parties: In re FATOUMATA D., and Another, Dependant Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Sokona D., et al., Respondents–Appellants, The Children's Aid Society, Petitioner–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 464

954 N.Y.S.2d 31

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07584

In re FATOUMATA D., and Another, Dependant Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Sokona D., et al., Respondents–Appellants, The Children's Aid Society, Petitioner–Respondent.

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

Nov. 13, 2012.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for Sokona D., appellant.

Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, for Bakari D., appellant.

Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Susan Clement of counsel), attorney for the children.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhonda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 25, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, following fact-finding determinations that respondents-appellants had neglected the subject children, terminated respondent father's parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed with respect to the fact-finding determinations, and the appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs.

The agency proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that it exercised diligent efforts to reunite respondents with their children (Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [f] ). Respondents' failed to preserve their argument that the agency failed to adequately address their language limitations ( Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 145, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). In any event, the argument is unavailing. Respondent mother testified in English and communicated with her children in English, without raising any objection to the provision of services in English, as opposed to her native Soninke ( cf. Matter of Richard W., 265 A.D.2d 685, 687, 696 N.Y.S.2d 298 [3d Dept.1999] ). Further, respondent father testified that he understood English, and that he received clarification from the service providers when needed. Moreover, the court ordered an interpreter for the father after his counsel noted that he was not testifying in Soninke.

The agency also proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondents failed to plan for the children's future ( seeSocial Services Law § 384–b[7][a], [c] ). Indeed, the record shows that respondents were unable to comprehend the nature and significance of the children's severe psychiatric and developmental disorders ( Matter of Jaiheem M.S., 62 A.D.3d 569, 569–570, 879 N.Y.S.2d 133 [1st Dept.2009] ). In addition, the father failed to attend all of his referred programming, was consistently late for visitation, and missed dozens of medical and educational appointments for the children ( see Matter...