Reset A A Font size: Print

IN RE: GIOVANNI K. Oneida County Department of Social Services, Petitioner-Respondent; Dawn K., Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: December 30, 2009

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, FAHEY, AND CARNI, JJ. Paul A. Norton, Clinton, for Respondent-Appellant. John A. Herbowy, Utica, for Petitioner-Respondent. William L. Koslosky, Law Guardian, Utica, for Giovanni K.

Respondent mother appeals from an order revoking a suspended judgment pursuant to Family Court Act § 633 and terminating her parental rights with respect to her son who is the subject of this proceeding. Contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother violated the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Dennis A., 64 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 882 N.Y.S.2d 624), and that termination of her parental rights was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Aaron S., 15 A.D.3d 585, 790 N.Y.S.2d 208; Matter of Jillian D., 307 A.D.2d 311, 312, 762 N.Y.S.2d 813, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 505, 776 N.Y.S.2d 221, 808 N.E.2d 357). “More than mere participation in the programs offered by petitioner is required. Rather, [a]t a minimum, a parent is required to address and overcome the specific personal and familial problems which initially endangered or proved harmful to the child[ ], and which may in the future endanger or possibly harm the child[ ]” (Matter of Bert M., 50 A.D.3d 1509, 1510, 856 N.Y.S.2d 758, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 704, 864 N.Y.S.2d 807, 894 N.E.2d 1198 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “Although the mother participated in the services offered by petitioner, she did not successfully address or gain insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child and continued to prevent the child's safe return” (Matter of Giovanni K., 62 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 846, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 715, 2009 WL 1851454). The remaining contentions of the mother, i.e., that petitioner failed to provide services as required under the suspended judgment and that her due process rights were violated, are unpreserved for our review and in any event are without merit (see Bert M., 50 A.D.3d at 1510, 856 N.Y.S.2d 758; Matter of Paige v. Paige, 50 A.D.3d 1542, 857 N.Y.S.2d 843; Matter of Jessica J., 44 A.D.3d 1132, 1134, 843 N.Y.S.2d 708; Matter of Adams H., 28 A.D.3d 213, 214, 812 N.Y.S.2d 80).

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