IN RE: Scott I.R. (Anonymous). (2020)

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 (Mildred T. Negron), dated September 10, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that the mother permanently neglected the subject child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.

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

In September 2014, 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, among other things, permanent neglect. After fact-finding and dispositional hearings in 2018, the Family Court determined, inter alia, that the mother permanently neglected the child, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.

Generally, to establish that a parent has permanently neglected a child, an agency must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that for a period of one year following the child's placement with the agency, the parent failed to maintain contact with the child or, alternatively, failed to plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency's diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship (see Social Services Law § 384–b[4], [7][a]). The threshold inquiry in a proceeding to terminate parental rights is whether the presentment agency demonstrated that it exerted diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship (see Social Services Law § 384–b[7][a]; Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422, 429, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87; Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 371, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139). Here, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the mother's relationship with the child. These efforts included, inter alia, providing the mother with referrals for domestic violence counseling, parenting classes, individual therapy, and housing services, discussing with the mother the importance of her compliance with the service plan, monitoring the mother's progress in the programs, and scheduling and supervising parental access with the child. Despite these efforts, the mother failed to plan for the return of the child, as she failed to gain insight into the issues that caused the child's removal and were preventing the child's return to her care (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 501 N.Y.S.2d 647, 492 N.E.2d 775; Matter of Zechariah J. [Valrick J.], 84 A.D.3d 1087, 1088, 923 N.Y.S.2d 653). Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's determination that the mother permanently neglected the child (see Matter of Tymel P. [Tyrone P.], 157 A.D.3d 699, 700, 69 N.Y.S.3d 92; Matter of Hector V.P. [Mariana V.], 146 A.D.3d 889, 890, 45 N.Y.S.3d 201; Matter of Omarie S.B. [Evan J.], 137 A.D.3d 902, 903, 27 N.Y.S.3d 179).

We also agree with the Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights, rather than to enter a suspended judgment, and to free the child for adoption (see Family Ct. Act § 631; Matter of Tymel P. [Tyrone P.], 157 A.D.3d at 700, 69 N.Y.S.3d 92; Matter of Xiomara D. [Faith D.], 141 A.D.3d 585, 585, 34 N.Y.S.3d 594; Matter of Nay'amya W.R. [Kiara D.], 135 A.D.3d 770, 771, 24 N.Y.S.3d 120).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.