In the Matter of Kellcie Nn. And Another

• Decision Date: 02 June 2011
• Citation: 85 A.D.3d 1251,924 N.Y.S.2d 617,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04568
• Parties: In the Matter of KELLCIE NN. and Another, Alleged to be Permanently Neglected Children.Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Sarah NN., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 1251

924 N.Y.S.2d 617

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04568

In the Matter of KELLCIE NN. and Another, Alleged to be Permanently Neglected Children.Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Sarah NN., Appellant.

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

June 2, 2011.

Samuel D. Castellino, Elmira, for appellant.Keith I. Cassidy, Tompkins County Department of Social Services, Ithaca, for respondent.Kelly Ann Damm, Ithaca, attorney for the children.Before: MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, LAHTINEN, MALONE JR. and STEIN, JJ.PETERS, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), entered July 16, 2010, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, to adjudicate respondent's children to be permanently neglected, and terminated respondent's parental rights.

Respondent is the mother of Kellcie NN. (born in 2006) and Keaniannin OO. (born in 2008). Shortly after Keaniannin's birth, it was discovered that respondent had, on more than one occasion, left the children alone in her apartment while a neighbor purportedly monitored them through a baby monitor. As a result, petitioner removed the children from respondent's care and placed them in foster care, where they remain today. In December 2009, petitioner initiated this permanent neglect proceeding against respondent seeking to terminate her parental rights. Respondent consented to a finding of permanent neglect and, following a dispositional hearing, Family Court determined that it would be in the children's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights and free them for adoption. Respondent now appeals.

Respondent's sole contention on this appeal is that Family Court abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights, rather than granting her a suspended judgment. Following an adjudication of permanent neglect, a suspended judgment may be issued to allow a parent additional time to improve parenting skills and demonstrate his or her fitness to care for the child ( see Family Ct. Act § 631[b]; Matter of Kayla KK. [Tracy LL.], 68 A.D.3d 1207, 1208, 889 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 707, 2010 WL 1286820 [2010]; Matter of Nevaeh SS. [Valerie L.], 68 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 889 N.Y.S.2d 764 [2009]; Matter of Isaiah F., 55 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 871 N.Y.S.2d 390 [2008] ). The singular concern is the best interests of the child, and “there is no presumption that any particular disposition, including the return of a child to a parent, promotes such interests” ( Matter of Angelica VV., 53 A.D.3d 732, 733, 861 N.Y.S.2d 187 [2008]; see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984]; Matter of Faith R., 56 A.D.3d 982, 984, 867 N.Y.S.2d 762 [2008] ).

Here, according deference to Family Court's choice of dispositional alternatives ( see Matter of Raine QQ., 51 A.D.3d 1106, 1106, 857 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 717, 862 N.Y.S.2d 469, 892 N.E.2d 863 [2008]; Matter of James X., 37 A.D.3d 1003, 1007, 830 N.Y.S.2d 608 [2007]; Matter of Arianna OO., 29 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 814 N.Y.S.2d 779 [2006] ), we find no basis upon which to disturb its conclusion that the children's best interests would not be served by granting respondent the second chance provided by a suspended judgment. Respondent was incarcerated for much of the time of the children's placement and, following her release, was arrested on three more occasions. Despite some recent progress by respondent, the hearing testimony established that she has a general distrust for petitioner and its caseworkers, has a history of arguing with service providers and professionals, and continues to blame others for the children's removal. She has repeatedly threatened and harassed the foster parents, resulting in the issuance of a stay away order of protection in their favor. Her inappropriate behavior during...