IN RE: DONOVAN W. (2008)

On appeal from an order of disposition that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to her child and freed him for adoption, respondent mother contends that Family Court abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights rather than issuing a suspended judgment.   We reject that contention.   Petitioner established at the dispositional hearing that, over the course of more than four years, the child had been removed from foster care and returned to his mother's care numerous times but had been returned to foster care because the mother had repeatedly relapsed after completing rehabilitation programs (see generally Matter of Joyce T., 65 N.Y.2d 39, 47-48, 489 N.Y.S.2d 705, 478 N.E.2d 1306).   Petitioner further established that, at the time of the dispositional hearing, the child was thriving with his foster mother and that the foster mother wished to adopt him (see Matter of Lenny R., 22 A.D.3d 240, 802 N.Y.S.2d 37, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 708, 812 N.Y.S.2d 443, 845 N.E.2d 1274;  Matter of Philip D., 266 A.D.2d 909, 698 N.Y.S.2d 139).   We thus conclude that the court properly determined that a suspended judgment would not be in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Ada M.R., 306 A.D.2d 920, 921, 760 N.Y.S.2d 802, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 509, 766 N.Y.S.2d 162, 798 N.E.2d 346;  see generally Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 310-311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122).   Under the circumstances of this case, any “ progress made by [the mother] in the months preceding the dispositional determination was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child's unsettled familial status” (Matter of Maryline A., 22 A.D.3d 227, 228, 802 N.Y.S.2d 29).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: