State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 1, 2016 521478 

_________________________________

In the Matter of DOMINIQUE VV. 

and Others, Permanently

Neglected Children.

DELAWARE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent;

KELLY VV. et al.,

Appellants.

(And Another Related Proceeding.)

_________________________________

Calendar Date: October 11, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Christopher Hammond, Cooperstown, for appellants.

Amy B. Merklen, Delaware County Department of Social

Services, Delhi, for respondent.

Larisa Obolensky, Delhi, attorney for the children.

__________

Aarons, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County

(Lambert, J.), entered June 24, 2015, which granted petitioner's

application, in two proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law

§ 384-b, to revoke a suspended judgment, and terminated

respondents' parental rights.
-2- 521478 

Respondents are the parents of three children (born in

2005, 2006 and 2007).1 These subject children have been in

petitioner's care and custody since April 2010. Petitioner

commenced these proceedings to adjudicate the subject children to

be permanently neglected. In 2014, with respondents' consent,

Family Court adjudged the children to be permanently neglected

and issued a suspended judgment. After respondents failed to

comply with certain conditions of the suspended judgment,

petitioner, in 2015, moved to revoke the suspended judgment and

terminate respondents' parental rights. Following a hearing,

Family Court granted petitioner's requested relief. Respondents

appeal. We affirm. 

"The purpose of a suspended judgment is to provide a parent

who has been found to have permanently neglected his or her child

with a brief period within which to become a fit parent with whom

the child can be safely reunited" (Matter of Clifton ZZ. [Latrice

ZZ.], 75 AD3d 683, 683 [2010] [internal quotation marks and

citations omitted]; see Matter of Michael HH. [Michael II.], 124

AD3d 944, 944 [2015]). Family Court may revoke a suspended

judgment and terminate a parent's rights upon a showing by a

preponderance of the evidence that a parent has not complied with

the terms of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Sequoyah Z.

[Melissa Z.], 127 AD3d 1518, 1519 [2015], lvs denied 25 NY3d 911,

912 [2015]). Family Court's findings are accorded great

deference and will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and

substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Donte LL. [Crystal

LL.], 141 AD3d 907, 908 [2016]). 

We conclude that petitioner established by a preponderance

of the evidence that respondents violated certain terms of the

suspended judgment. Contrary to their contention, respondents

were given adequate notice of the requirement to partake in

financial budgeting classes and, in fact, they participated in

such classes (see Matter of Jessica J., 44 AD3d 1132, 1133-1334

[2007]). Notwithstanding their participation, however,

respondents made minimal progress and were often confrontational

1 Respondent Kelly VV. has another child (born in 2003)

from a separate relationship.
-3- 521478 

at class. In addition, respondents were late in paying their

utility bills, but nonetheless spent money on nonessential items

(see Matter of Gracie YY., 34 AD3d 1053, 1055 [2006]). The

record further reveals that respondents, in contravention of the

terms of the suspended judgment, failed to provide a safe and

sanitary household for the children (see Matter of Alyssa C.

[Steven C.], 93 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012]; Matter of Gracie YY., 34

AD3d at 1055). In particular, garbage and debris cluttered the

house, urine and a dead mouse were observed on the floor,

cigarette butts were scattered around the house, dried blood was

found on the toilet seat, vomit was in the bathtub, bird feces

and mouse excrement were discovered on shoes, furniture, blankets

and bedding, items were left unwashed in the sink and the

children were hurt stepping on exposed tacks during supervised

visits. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Family Court's

decision to revoke the suspended judgment was supported by a

preponderance of the evidence.

We also disagree with respondents' assertion that Family

Court erred in terminating their parental rights. The subject

children have been in foster care for a majority of their lives

and respondents have failed to maintain a suitable or safe living

environment for the subject children notwithstanding their

awareness to do so (see Matter of Gracie YY., 34 AD3d at 1055;

Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622, 623-624 [1997]). While

noncompliance with the provisions of a suspended judgment does

not require termination of parental rights, it constitutes strong

evidence that termination serves the best interests of the

children (see Matter of Hazel OO. [Roseanne OO.], 133 AD3d 1126,

1128 [2015]; Matter of Ronnie P. [Danielle Q.], 85 AD3d 1246,

1247 [2011]). In sum, because a sound and substantial basis

exists in the record supporting Family Court's determination that

termination of respondents' parental rights was in the best

interests of the subject children, we decline to disturb it (see

Matter of Madelyn D. [Direll D.], 112 AD3d 1165, 1166-1167

[2013]; Matter of Elias QQ. [Stephanie QQ.], 72 AD3d 1165, 1167

[2010]).

Peters, P.J., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
-4- 521478 

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court