IN RE: M.M.C. (Anonymous). (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Jeffrey C. Martin, J.), dated August 20, 2024.  The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of fact-finding of the same court dated July 19, 2023, made after a fact-finding hearing, finding that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, and after a dispositional hearing, terminated the mother's parental rights and transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

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

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights to the subject child on the ground, among others, of permanent neglect.  After fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the Family Court determined that the mother permanently neglected the child, terminated the mother's parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.  The mother appeals.

“An authorized agency that brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights based upon permanent neglect bears the burden of establishing that it has made ‘diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship’ ” (Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 NY3d 422, 429, quoting Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a] ).  Diligent efforts are “reasonable attempts by an authorized agency to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent and child” (Social Services Law § 384–b[7][f] ).

“Once an 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” (Matter of Ryder S.R. [Shaquana R.], 236 AD3d 1045, 1046;  see Matter of Alexis M.B. [Jaclyn R.P.], 224 AD3d 679, 681).  “ ‘[T]o plan for the future of the child’ shall mean to take such steps as may be necessary to provide an adequate, stable home and parental care for the child within a period of time which is reasonable under the financial circumstances available to the parent” (Social Services Law § 384–b[7][c] ).  “At a minimum, parents must take steps to correct the conditions that led to the removal of the child from their home” (Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 AD3d 1087, 1087–1088 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it engaged in diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship by forming a service plan that served the mother's needs, providing the mother with referrals for services, and scheduling parental access sessions with the child (see Matter of Khaliq William S., Jr. [Khaliq William S., Sr.], 247 AD3d 1196, 1198;  Matter of Carlos J.G.W. [Carlos G.], 246 AD3d 745, 746).  Moreover, the record shows that the mother failed to plan for the child's future, as the mother only partially complied with her service plan and failed to gain insight into the issues that caused removal of the child (see Matter of Ruth C. [Jaslene C.], 226 AD3d 677, 679;  Matter of Elizabeth E.H. [Camille M.M.], 196 AD3d 578, 580).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly determined that the mother permanently neglected the child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner for the purpose of adoption.

CHAMBERS, J.P., FORD, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.