IN RE: SEANDELL L. and Shaquell L.G.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: SEANDELL L. and Shaquell L.G. Monroe County Department of Human and Health Services, Petitioner-Respondent; Shantele L., Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: December 31, 2008

PRESENT:  MARTOCHE, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. Paloma A. Capanna, Penfield, for Respondent-Appellant. Daniel M. Delaus, Jr., County Attorney, Rochester (Paul N. Humphrey of Counsel), for Petitioner-Respondent. Rekha Jain, Law Guardian, Pittsford, for Seandell L. and Shaquell L.G.

 Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, revoked a suspended judgment entered upon a finding of permanent neglect and terminated her parental rights with respect to her children.   Contrary to the contention of the mother, Family Court's determination following a hearing that she violated the conditions of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Aaron S., 15 A.D.3d 585, 790 N.Y.S.2d 208;  Matter of Veronica W., 289 A.D.2d 1055, 1056, 735 N.Y.S.2d 848, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 613, 742 N.Y.S.2d 605, 769 N.E.2d 352).   The mother's further contentions that petitioner failed to establish that it exercised diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship and that the evidence did not support a finding of permanent neglect are “not properly before us because [those issues were] conclusively determined in the prior proceeding to terminate [the mother's] parental rights” (Matter of Ronald O., 43 A.D.3d 1351, 1351, 842 N.Y.S.2d 801).   We reject the mother's contention that the court failed to conduct a dispositional hearing inasmuch as “[a] hearing on a petition alleging the violation of a suspended judgment is part of the dispositional phase of a permanent neglect proceeding” (Matter of Saboor C., 303 A.D.2d 1022, 757 N.Y.S.2d 192;  see Matter of Carlos D., 24 A.D.3d 1263, 805 N.Y.S.2d 887, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 710, 814 N.Y.S.2d 599, 847 N.E.2d 1172).   The evidence supports the court's determination that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the children (see Ronald O., 43 A.D.3d 1351, 842 N.Y.S.2d 801;  Aaron S., 15 A.D.3d 585, 790 N.Y.S.2d 208).   We have considered the mother's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

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