N.Y. Foundling Hosp. v. Stephanie M. (In re Justice V.)

• Decision Date: 26 October 2021
• Docket Number: Dkt. No. B43944/16,14486,Case No. 2021-01058
• Citation: 152 N.Y.S.3d 913 (Mem),198 A.D.3d 586
• Parties: In the MATTER OF JUSTICE V., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., New York Foundling Hospital, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Stephanie M., Respondent–Appellant, Ricardo V., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

198 A.D.3d 586

152 N.Y.S.3d 913 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF JUSTICE V., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,New York Foundling Hospital, Petitioner–Respondent,

v. Stephanie M., Respondent–Appellant,Ricardo V., Respondent.

14486

Dkt. No. B43944/16

Case No. 2021-01058

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

ENTERED October 26, 2021

Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for appellant.

The New York Foundling Hospital Adoption and Legal Services, Long Island City (Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), for respondent.

Gische, J.P., Webber, Mazzarelli, Shulman, Pitt, JJ.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily Olshansky, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a finding that respondent mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights and committed the 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.

Family Court correctly found that reasonable efforts on the agency's part to strengthen the parent-child relationship were unnecessary, because it is undisputed that the mother's parental rights to two of the child's older siblings had been involuntarily terminated. As a result, the burden shifted to the mother to demonstrate that further reasonable efforts were in the child's best interests, not contrary to the child's health or safety and would likely result in reunification of the family ( Family Court Act § 1039–b[b] ; see Matter of Skyler C. [Satima C.], 106 A.D.3d 816, 818, 964 N.Y.S.2d 616 [2d Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Harmony P. [Christopher Q.], 95 A.D.3d 1608, 1609, 944 N.Y.S.2d 810 [3d Dept. 2012] ). The mother failed to meet her burden.

The finding that the child was permanently neglected is supported by clear and convincing evidence that the mother failed to plan for the child's future for a period of more than one year ( Social Services Law § 384–b [7][a] ; see Matter of Richie N.V. [Stephanie M.], 174 A.D.3d 427, 428, 107 N.Y.S.3d 2 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 901, 2019 WL 5270702 [2019] ). While the mother did attend some visits and completed a parenting skills course during the relevant time period, she failed to comply with all other aspects of her service plan or otherwise gain insight into the problems that led to the child's removal (see id ; Matter of "Baby Girl " Q. , 14 A.D.3d 392, 393, 787 N.Y.S.2d 328 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 704, 801 N.Y.S.2d 1, 834 N.E.2d 780 [2005] ). The mother also failed to meaningfully address the problems that led to the child's placement, since she failed to complete a substance abuse program and continued to use drugs (see Matter of Lihanna A. [Marcella H.], 140 A.D.3d 404, 404, 30 N.Y.S.3d 875 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 904, 2016 WL 6110899 [2016] ).

A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the child,...