In re Christina M.R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Christina M.R.

101 A.D.3d 1021, 957 N.Y.2d 251

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 19, 2012·No. Appeal No. 1; Appeal No. 2; Appeal No. 3·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that the petitioner SCO Family of Services established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, facilitating regular visitation with the children and referring her to parenting classes and therapy programs (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W, 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter ofDariana K.C. [Katherine MJ, 99 AD3d 899, 901 [2012]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the future of the children by failing to consistently attend visitation and to complete a necessary parenting class and a therapy program (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Joseph W. [Monica W.J, 95 AD3d 1347, [1022]*10221348 [2012]; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the children.

Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the mother’s parental rights, thus freeing the children for adoption by their foster parent (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]; Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AID3d 865, 866 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that the petitioner SCO Family of Services established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by, among other things, facilitating regular visitation with the children and referring her to parenting classes and therapy programs (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; Matter of Star Leslie W, 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter ofDariana K.C. [Katherine MJ, 99 AD3d 899, 901 [2012]). Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the future of the children by failing to consistently attend visitation and to complete a necessary parenting class and a therapy program (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]; Matter of Joseph W. [Monica W.J, 95 AD3d 1347, [1022]*10221348 [2012]; Matter of Beyonce H. [Baranaca H.], 85 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]). Accordingly, the Family Court properly found that the mother permanently neglected the children.

Furthermore, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the mother’s parental rights, thus freeing the children for adoption by their foster parent (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d at 147-148; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1088-1089 [2011], cert denied sub nom. Valrick J. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 568 US —, 133 S Ct 239 [2012]; Matter of Amber D.C. [Angelica C.], 79 AID3d 865, 866 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

In re Christina M.R., 101 A.D.3d 1021, 957 N.Y.2d 251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

101 A.D.3d 1021 (In re Christina M.R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related