IN RE: GRABIEL V. (2009)

In these four appeals, respondent mother appeals from orders adjudicating her children to be permanently neglected and terminating her parental rights with respect to them.   Contrary to the mother's contention in each appeal, petitioner established that it exercised the requisite diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship by “provid[ing] the assistance necessary for the [mother] to overcome the particular conditions that separated [her] from [her children]” (Matter of Jesus JJ., 232 A.D.2d 752, 753, 649 N.Y.S.2d 61, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 809, 655 N.Y.S.2d 889, 678 N.E.2d 502;  see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [f];  Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 373, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139;  cf. Matter of Olivia L., 41 A.D.3d 1226, 1227, 837 N.Y.S.2d 466).   We further conclude that petitioner established that the mother permanently neglected her children (see § 384-b[7][a] ).  “[A]lthough [the mother] did cooperate with [petitioner] to some degree and made limited progress in other areas, [she] nevertheless failed to address and overcome the primary problem that led to the children's removal in the first instance” (Matter of Michelle F., 222 A.D.2d 747, 749, 635 N.Y.S.2d 709;  see Matter of Kerensa D. [Appeal No. 2], 278 A.D.2d 878, 718 N.Y.S.2d 661, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 707, 725 N.Y.S.2d 637, 749 N.E.2d 206).   The “ ‘unwillingness on [the mother's] part to recognize and address the [children's] particular, specialized needs was properly considered by [Family Court] as evidence of a failure to take the steps necessary to provide [the children] with appropriate care’ ” (Matter of Noemi D., 43 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 842 N.Y.S.2d 808, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 814, 848 N.Y.S.2d 26, 878 N.E.2d 609).

Even assuming, arguendo, that the mother preserved for our review her contention that the dispositional hearing was “deficient,” we reject that contention.   The court's procedure in conducting the hearing was proper (see Family Ct. Act § 625[a];  Matter of Justina Rose D., 28 A.D.3d 659, 660-661, 813 N.Y.S.2d 229;  Matter of Baby Boy G., 219 A.D.2d 549, 632 N.Y.S.2d 461).   We further conclude on the record before us that the failure of the mother's attorney to present any evidence at the dispositional hearing, without more, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.   At the fact-finding hearing, the mother's attorney thoroughly cross-examined petitioner's witnesses and presented witnesses on the mother's behalf, and the mother has failed to establish that the failure to present evidence at the dispositional hearing “caused her to suffer actual prejudice” (Matter of Nicholas GG., 285 A.D.2d 678, 679, 726 N.Y.S.2d 802;  see Matter of Tommy R., 298 A.D.2d 967, 968, 748 N.Y.S.2d 119, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 505, 755 N.Y.S.2d 711, 785 N.E.2d 733).

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

MEMORANDUM: