Charity S., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent.  (Appeal No. 1.) v. << (2007)

 In each appeal, Charity S. (respondent) appeals from an order that terminated her parental rights with respect to each of her three children based upon a finding of permanent neglect and freed them for adoption.   We reject respondent's contention that Family Court abused its discretion in refusing to enter a suspended judgment with respect to each child (see generally Matter of Jose R., 32 A.D.3d 1284, 1285, 821 N.Y.S.2d 719, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 718, 827 N.Y.S.2d 689, 860 N.E.2d 991).   The court's sole concern at the dispositional hearing was the best interests of the children (see Family Ct. Act § 631;  Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824), and the record of that hearing establishes that respondent lacked space in her home to accommodate the children and that she had no stable employment (see Matter of Brian C., 32 A.D.3d 1224, 821 N.Y.S.2d 712, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 717, 827 N.Y.S.2d 688, 860 N.E.2d 990).   The record further establishes that the minimal progress made by respondent in addressing her own personal issues was insufficient to establish that she was able to assist the children with their special needs.   The court's determination that respondent was not likely to change sufficiently to enable her to parent the children is entitled to great deference (see generally Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 842, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775;  Matter of Philip D., 266 A.D.2d 909, 698 N.Y.S.2d 139), and we thus conclude that “any progress that respondent made ‘was not sufficient to warrant any further prolongation of the child[ren]’ s unsettled familial status' ” (Jose R., 32 A.D.3d at 1285, 821 N.Y.S.2d 719).

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

MEMORANDUM: