IN RE: Cylie G.P. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services (2026)

Argued—April 13, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated April 28, 2025.  The order of fact-finding and disposition, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon a decision of the same court dated March 20, 2025, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition (see CPLR 5520[c] );  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, inter alia, to terminate the mother's parental rights to the subject child on the ground of permanent neglect.  Following a fact-finding hearing, at which the mother testified, the Family Court found that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother permanently neglected the child.  After a dispositional hearing, the court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the mother's parental rights and free the child for adoption, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.  The mother appeals.

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, a petitioning agency must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it satisfied its duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship (see Matter of Chiamaka B.O. [Stanley N.O.], 235 AD3d 759, 760).  Once the agency demonstrates that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the agency bears the burden of proving that, during the relevant period of time, the parent failed to maintain contact with the child or plan for the child's future, although physically and financially able to do so (see id.).

Here, the petitioner met its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the relationship between the mother and the child by, among other things, developing an appropriate service plan, scheduling regular parental access between the mother and the child, and referring the mother to substance abuse treatment programs (see Matter of Deanna E.R. [Latisha M.], 169 AD3d 691, 692–693).  The record demonstrates that despite the petitioner's diligent efforts, the mother failed to plan for the return of the child since, among other things, the mother did not successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program (see Matter of Mateo M.Q. [Jessica Q.], 185 AD3d 1037, 1038;  Matter of Syasiah A.-M.L. [Valisha A.N.], 154 AD3d 755, 756).  Accordingly, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother permanently neglected the child.

Contrary to the mother's contention, and as the petitioner and the attorney for the child contend, the Family Court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating the mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption (see Matter of Orazio R. [Nanci P.], 233 AD3d 689, 691;  Matter of Camila G.C. [Matthew C.], 229 AD3d 461, 462).  Also, contrary to the mother's contention, a suspended judgment was not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Camila G.C. [Matthew C.], 229 AD3d at 462).  Such a disposition would only prolong the delay of stability and permanence in the child's living situation (see Matter of Ella Elizabeth V. [Reginald P.], 234 AD3d 703, 705).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court