SCO Family of Servs. v. Marisa L. (In re Blake A.M.)

• Decision Date: 19 December 2018
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. B–4855–16, B–4856–16,2017–10800,2017–10786
• Citation: 167 A.D.3d 895,90 N.Y.S.3d 130
• Parties: In the MATTER OF BLAKE A.M. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Marisa L. (Anonymous), etc., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Brittny A.M. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, Petitioner-Respondent; v. Marisa L. (Anonymous), etc., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

167 A.D.3d 895

90 N.Y.S.3d 130

In the MATTER OF BLAKE A.M. (Anonymous).

SCO Family of Services, Petitioner-Respondent;

v.Marisa L. (Anonymous), etc., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Brittny A.M. (Anonymous).

SCO Family of Services, Petitioner-Respondent;

v.Marisa L. (Anonymous), etc., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)

2017–10786

2017–10800

Docket Nos. B–4855–16, B–4856–16

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

Submitted—October 22, 2018

December 19, 2018

Mark Brandys, New York, NY, for appellant.

Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff, LLP, Roslyn, N.Y. (Jeffrey Blinkoff of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

The Legal Aid Society, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), attorney for the children.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and Social Services Law § 384–b, the mother appeals from two orders of fact-finding and disposition (one as to each child), of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), both dated September 8, 2017. The orders, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected and abandoned the subject children.

ORDERED that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Family Court's finding that the mother permanently neglected the subject children. The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7] ; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 380–381, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139 ). These efforts included scheduling and facilitating parental access, referring the mother to therapy, monitoring the mother's participation in therapy, meeting with the mother to review the service plan, and explaining the importance of complying with the plan.

The mother contends that the petitioner failed to help her find new individual therapy after her insurance stopped paying for her therapy sessions. However, the evidence demonstrated that the mother chose not to attend further therapy sessions, and that her therapy was terminated "due to poor attendance." The mother further contends that the petitioner did not exercise diligent efforts because it did not assist in changing the parental access sessions to a location that was more convenient for her. However, the parental access sessions were scheduled to occur near where the children lived, and the mother's argument that she could not reach that location was contradicted by her own testimony. Finally, the mother contends that the petitioner did not establish the mother's failure to plan for the future of the children because she did everything in her power to visit the children and she maintained contact with the foster care agency. However, the evidence established that the mother stopped attending therapy sessions and exhibited no inclination or ability to meaningfully interact with the children (see Matter of...