PETITIONER RESPONDENT DOMINIQUE RESPONDENT APPELLANT v. <<

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

PETITIONER–RESPONDENT;  DOMINIQUE C., RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

CAF 10–01939

Decided: December 21, 2012

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. EVELYNE A. O'SULLIVAN, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR BARON C., DAEMONI C., AND NEVEAH P.

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

Memorandum:  In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384–b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to the three subject children and ordered that they be freed for adoption.   Contrary to the mother's contentions, the record supports Family Court's determination that a suspended judgment, i.e., a “brief grace period designed to prepare the parent to be reunited with the child” (Matter of Michael B., 80 N.Y.2d 299, 311), was not in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Jane H. [Susan H.], 85 AD3d 1586, 1587, lv denied 17 NY3d 709).  “The court's determination at the dispositional hearing is entitled to great deference, particularly because it depended in large part on the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Alyshia M.R., 53 AD3d 1060, 1061, lv. denied 11 NY3d 707).   Finally, to the extent that the mother's contentions are based on matters outside the record on appeal, they are not properly before us (see Matter of Gridley v. Syrko, 50 AD3d 1560, 1561;  Matter of Harry P. v. Cindy W., 48 AD3d 1100, 1100).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court