SCO Family of Servs. v. Vict. C. (In re Adam D.)

• Decision Date: 10 January 2018
• Docket Number: B–11847–15,2016–08578,B–11848–15,Docket Nos. B–11846–15
• Citation: 157 A.D.3d 673,68 N.Y.S.3d 518
• Parties: In the MATTER OF ADAM D. (Anonymous), appellant. SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents; v. Victoria C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Ann M.C. (Anonymous), appellant. SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents; v. Victoria C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Kashawn D. (Anonymous), appellant. SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents; v. Victoria C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

157 A.D.3d 673

68 N.Y.S.3d 518

In the MATTER OF ADAM D. (Anonymous), appellant.

SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents;

v.Victoria C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Ann M.C. (Anonymous), appellant.

SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents;

v.Victoria C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)

In the Matter of Kashawn D. (Anonymous), appellant.

SCO Family of Services, et al., petitioners-respondents;

v.Victoria C. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 3)

2016–08578

Docket Nos. B–11846–15

B–11847–15

B–11848–15

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

Argued—November 6, 2017

January 10, 2018

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Patricia Colella of counsel), attorney for the children, the appellants Adam D., Ann M. C., and Kashawn D.

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

Larry S. Bachner, New York, NY, for respondent-respondent.

SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Marybeth S. Richroath, J.), dated July 22, 2016. The order, after a fact-finding hearing, and upon a finding that the petitioner SCO Family of Services failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship between the mother and the children and to reunite the family, dismissed those branches of the petitions which were to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petitions are reinstated, those branches of the petitions which were to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect are reinstated, findings are made that the mother permanently neglected the subject children, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a dispositional hearing to be held with all convenient speed and the issuance of a dispositional order thereafter.

In June 2015, the petitioner SCO Family of Services (hereinafter the agency) commenced these proceedings to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect based on her alleged failure to maintain contact with and plan for the future of the children from June 2014 through June 2015. Following a hearing, and upon finding that the agency failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the Family Court dismissed those branches of the petitions which were to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. The children appeal.

The mother's contention that the attorney for the children improperly substituted his judgment for that of the children is without merit (see Matter of Isobella A. [Anna W.], 136 A.D.3d 1317, 1320, 25 N.Y.S.3d 465 ).

Contrary to the Family Court's determination, the agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the mother's relationship with the children by, inter alia, developing a service plan, providing her with referrals, maintaining contact with her by telephone and in person, and providing paid transportation for visits with the children (see Matter of Chanel C. [Vanessa N.], 118 A.D.3d 826, 827, 988 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; Matter of Tashameeka...