IN RE: HAZELSELENA S. M. (2024)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Grace Oboma–Layat, J.), entered on or about February 28, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence showing that despite the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother failed to plan for the child's return because she gained no insight into the reasons for the child's placement during the relevant statutory period (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a];  see Matter of Jeremiah C. [Kim C.], 211 A.D.3d 598, 599, 181 N.Y.S.3d 59 [1st Dept. 2022], lv. denied 39 N.Y.3d 910, 2023 WL 3011829 [2023]).  The agency fulfilled its statutory duty to exert diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationships by developing a service plan to address the problems that led to the child's removal, maintaining frequent contact with the mother, supporting her participation in scheduled services, and facilitating her visits and contact with the child (see Matter of N.S. [M.H.], 228 A.D.3d 471, 472, 211 N.Y.S.3d 375 [1st Dept. 2024];  Matter of De'Lyn D.W. [Liza Carmen T.], 150 A.D.3d 599, 600, 56 N.Y.S.3d 53 [1st Dept. 2017]).  Despite these efforts by the agency, the mother failed to complete the required evaluations and services.  The mother's testimony that the services intended to help her to care for the child were “pointless” and unnecessary demonstrates that the agency's efforts failed because of the mother's refusal to cooperate (see Matter of La'Vetta Danile S.F., 194 A.D.2d 384, 385, 598 N.Y.S.2d 523 [1st Dept. 1993]).

To the extent that the mother received anger management services and mental health treatment for bipolar disorder, the record shows that she did not gain insight into her behavior or otherwise benefit from therapy (see Matter of Faith J. [Kimberly J.], 200 A.D.3d 611, 612, 155 N.Y.S.3d 780 [1st Dept. 2021];  Matter of Julianna Victoria S. [Benny William W.], 89 A.D.3d 490, 491, 934 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 805, 2012 WL 400041 [2012]), and she exhibited an inability to control her anger when faced with circumstances she did not like (see Matter of Ebonee Annastasha F. [Crystal Arlene F.], 116 A.D.3d 576, 577, 985 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 906, 2014 WL 2891997 [2014];  Matter of Imani Elizabeth W., 56 A.D.3d 318, 319, 868 N.Y.S.2d 171 [1st Dept. 2008]).  There were concerns about the mother's “erratic behaviors” and chronic lateness for visits, and she ultimately terminated her therapy, stating that she did not need medication or services.  For that reason, the mother's visits with the child were suspended.  Although the mother reported that she completed an intake appointment for mental health services at another provider, she presented no evidence concerning that treatment before the termination petition was filed (see Matter of Amanda M.T. [Charles Franklin T.], 189 A.D.3d 470, 471, 135 N.Y.S.3d 111 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 907, 2021 WL 1134461 [2021]).

Additionally, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was in the child's best interest to be freed for adoption (see Matter of Leroy Simpson M. [Joanne M.], 122 A.D.3d 480, 481, 996 N.Y.S.2d 271 [1st Dept. 2014]).  A suspended judgment was not warranted because the child, who has been in foster care since May 2017, was living in a loving foster home where her needs were being met, and her foster mother wanted to adopt her (see Matter of Angelica D. [Deborah D.], 157 A.D.3d 587, 588, 69 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2018]).  Furthermore, the mother failed to show that she was able to properly care for the child or would be able to do so in the future (see Matter of Raul R. [III] [Raul R.—Cinthia R.], 199 A.D.3d 594, 595, 158 N.Y.S.3d 87 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 944, 165 N.Y.S.3d 30, 185 N.E.3d 512 [2022]).