IN RE: ROSIE G.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: ROSIE G., et al., Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Francis G., Respondent–Appellant, Claudius W., Respondent, Talbot Perkins Children's Services, et al., Petitioners–Respondents.

Decided: November 16, 1999

ELLERIN, P.J., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, LERNER and ANDRIAS, JJ. Marcia Egger, for Rosie G., et al. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, for Respondent–Appellant. James M. Abramson, for Petitioners–Respondents.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gloria Sosa–Lintner, J.), entered on or about May 19, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and placed the children with the Commissioner of Social Services and petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The finding of permanent neglect against respondent mother was supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent mother failed to plan for the children's future;  although physically and financially able to do so, respondent mother failed to submit to random drug and alcohol testing and to avail herself of counseling, for both of which petitioner agency repeatedly referred her and encouraged her to submit to (see, Social Services Law § 384–b [7];  Matter of Sheila G., 61 N.Y.2d 368, 474 N.Y.S.2d 421, 462 N.E.2d 1139;  Matter of Juanita Katerina M., 205 A.D.2d 474, 614 N.Y.S.2d 501;  Matter of Selathia Nicole F., 243 A.D.2d 400, 663 N.Y.S.2d 183, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 806, 669 N.Y.S.2d 1, 691 N.E.2d 1027).   In making its permanent neglect finding, Family Court properly received in evidence, as business records, progress notes documenting respondent's repeated refusal to cooperate with referrals for counseling and random drug and alcohol testing (see, Matter of F. Children, 199 A.D.2d 81, 604 N.Y.S.2d 956).   Any delay in respondent mother's receipt of the progress notes was harmless since she was provided with a complete copy of the notes prior to completion of her cross-examination of the testifying witness.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.