Clarine E., Respondent-Appellant. v. << (1999)

Respondent has appealed from only the fact-finding order of Family Court.   Although an intermediate order in a permanent neglect case is not appealable as of right (see, Matter of Roy D., 207 A.D.2d 958, 958-959, 617 N.Y.S.2d 75) and respondent should have appealed from the order of disposition, which brings up for review the propriety of the fact-finding order (see, Matter of Lisa E. [appeal No. 1], 207 A.D.2d 983, 617 N.Y.S.2d 657), in the exercise of our discretion we deem the appeal to have been taken from the order of disposition (see, Matter of Ariel C., 248 A.D.2d 976, 669 N.Y.S.2d 1006, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 801, 677 N.Y.S.2d 71, 699 N.E.2d 431).

We conclude that petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent permanently neglected her daughter by failing to engage in efforts to remedy the conditions that resulted in her daughter's removal from her custody and to plan for her daughter's future notwithstanding petitioner's diligent efforts to strengthen and nurture the parent-child relationship (see, Matter of Gregory B., 74 N.Y.2d 77, 86, 544 N.Y.S.2d 535, 542 N.E.2d 1052;  Matter of Paige M.J., 256 A.D.2d 1150, 684 N.Y.S.2d 123;  Matter of Sonia H., 177 A.D.2d 575, 576 N.Y.S.2d 165).   The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter a suspended judgment;  respondent made no showing that a suspended judgment would be in her daughter's best interests (see, Family Ct. Act § 631[b];  § 633;  Social Services Law § 384-b[8] [c] [ii] ).   We perceive no basis to disturb the court's factual findings (see, Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 842, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: