Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JEREMIAH W.T. (Anonymous), etc. SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; v. Shaunta K.J. (Anonymous), etc., appellant, William T. (Anonymous), respondent.
(Proceeding No.1 ) IN RE: Zackariyah M.T. (Anonymous), etc. SCO Family of Services, petitioner-respondent; v. Shaunta K.J. (Anonymous), appellant, William T. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, the mother appeals from two orders of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.) (one as to each child), both dated August 7, 2020. The orders of disposition, upon remittitur from this Court by decision and order dated November 7, 2018, and upon a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Emily Ruben, J.), dated March 17, 2020, made after a dispositional hearing, terminated the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York 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 orders of disposition (see CPLR 5520[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner, SCO Family of Services, commenced these proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found, among other things, that the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, and it dismissed the petitions. The agency appealed. This Court reversed the order, reinstated the petitions, made findings that the mother permanently neglected the children, and remitted the matter for a dispositional hearing (see Matter of Imani L.J. [Shaunta J.], 166 A.D.3d 616, 87 N.Y.S.3d 218). Following the dispositional hearing, the Family Court terminated the mother's parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption. The mother appeals.
“[A]t the ․ dispositional hearing the court must consider only the best interests of the child involved” (Matter of Hailey ZZ. [Ricky ZZ.], 19 N.Y.3d 422, 430, 948 N.Y.S.2d 846, 972 N.E.2d 87; see Family Ct Act § 631; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824). A dispositional order suspending judgment provides a brief grace period to give a parent found to have permanently neglected a child a second chance to prepare for reunification with the child (see Family Ct Act § 633; Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122; Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M.C.], 170 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860; Matter of Amaarie L.M. [Kelly R.], 166 A.D.3d 977, 978, 88 N.Y.S.3d 472; Matter of Tymel P. [Tyrone P.], 157 A.D.3d 699, 700, 69 N.Y.S.3d 92; Matter of Chanel C. [Vanessa N.], 118 A.D.3d 826, 828, 988 N.Y.S.2d 75; Matter of Jesse D. [John J.D.], 109 A.D.3d 990, 991, 972 N.Y.S.2d 92). A suspended judgment is permitted only where the court determines that such disposition is in the child's best interests (see Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d at 311, 590 N.Y.S.2d 60, 604 N.E.2d 122; Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M. C.], 170 A.D.3d at 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860; Matter of Amaarie L.M. [Kelly R.], 166 A.D.3d at 978, 88 N.Y.S.3d 472; Matter of Tymel P. [Tyrone P.], 157 A.D.3d at 700, 69 N.Y.S.3d 92; Matter of Chanel C. [Vanessa N.], 118 A.D.3d at 828, 988 N.Y.S.2d 75; Matter of Jesse D. [John J.D.], 109 A.D.3d at 991, 972 N.Y.S.2d 92).
Here, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights and that a suspended judgment was not appropriate since the mother lacked insight into her problems and failed to address the issues that led to the children's removal and the finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Adam M.D. [Victoria M.C.], 170 A.D.3d at 1007, 94 N.Y.S.3d 860; Matter of Amaarie L.M. [Kelly R.], 166 A.D.3d at 978, 88 N.Y.S.3d 472; Matter of Tymel P. [Tyrone P.], 157 A.D.3d at 700, 69 N.Y.S.3d 92; Matter of Tanay R.S. [Tanya M.], 147 A.D.3d 858, 860–861, 47 N.Y.S.3d 360; Matter of Devon D.T. [Davina T.], 135 A.D.3d 947, 948, 24 N.Y.S.3d 383).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2021-02116, 2022-03610
Decided: June 01, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)