Mary B., Appellant. v. << (1997)

Respondent appeals from an order of disposition adjudicating her child to be permanently neglected and terminating her parental rights.   Respondent contends that petitioner, Livingston County Department of Social Services (DSS), failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that:  it made diligent efforts to aid respondent;  respondent failed to plan for the future of the child;  and respondent is mentally retarded and suffers from a mental illness that renders her unable to parent the child.   We disagree.

 An agency is required only to make reasonable attempts “to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between parent and child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [7][f] );  the agency is not mandated to succeed in its efforts (see, Matter of Jamie M., 63 N.Y.2d 388, 393, 482 N.Y.S.2d 461, 472 N.E.2d 311).   Here, the efforts of DSS to assist respondent in obtaining parental training, visitation with the child, and counseling for her mental health problems were frustrated by respondent's uncooperative and noncompliant conduct, and DSS cannot be faulted for its meaningful efforts to foster the parental relationship (see, Matter of Richard X. [Marion X.], 226 A.D.2d 762, 640 N.Y.S.2d 628, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 808, 647 N.Y.S.2d 165, 670 N.E.2d 449;  Matter of St. Christopher O. [Bernard O.], 204 A.D.2d 765, 766, 611 N.Y.S.2d 930, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 805, 618 N.Y.S.2d 6, 642 N.E.2d 325).   The failure of respondent to attend required programs, her hostility toward DSS caseworkers and the neglect/foster care process and her poor visitation record support Family Court's finding of permanent neglect (see, Matter of Miracle Makers, Inc. [Jamal Lavel Z.] v. Sonia J., 220 A.D.2d 593, 632 N.Y.S.2d 617;  Matter of Matthew C. [Robert D, Leona C.], 216 A.D.2d 637, 638, 627 N.Y.S.2d 822).   Additionally, DSS established by uncontroverted expert testimony that respondent suffers from a mental illness and that she is mentally retarded, that her mental illness and retardation are permanent and that the child would be at risk if placed in respondent's care (see, Matter of Jarred R., 236 A.D.2d 888, 654 N.Y.S.2d 64;  Matter of Lonette Monique C., 236 A.D.2d 880, 653 N.Y.S.2d 760).

Respondent failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred by failing to conduct a hearing before issuing its order of disposition (see, Matter of Brian QQ. [Gary QQ.], 166 A.D.2d 749, 750, 563 N.Y.S.2d 114;  Matter of Sharon P.I. [Rosale I.], 153 A.D.2d 942, 943, 545 N.Y.S.2d 749).   In any event, her contention lacks merit.   A dispositional hearing is not required in the circumstances of this case (see, Matter of Joyce T., 65 N.Y.2d 39, 46, 489 N.Y.S.2d 705, 478 N.E.2d 1306;  Matter of Joseph R., 191 A.D.2d 1034, 1035, 595 N.Y.S.2d 153).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: