Case Name: In the Matter of Mia Veronica B. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Brandy Veronica R., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-12-01
Citations: 145 A.D.3d 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Mia Veronica B. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Brandy Veronica R., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent.
Judges: Concur—Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Mia Veronica B. and Another, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Brandy Veronica R., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent.
[41 NYS3d 703]

Opinion:
Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a finding of permanent neglect by the respondent mother, terminated her parental rights to the subject children and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supported the Family Court's finding that respondent mother, despite the petitioner agency's diligent efforts in referring her for mental health counseling, parenting skills programs, drug treatment programs and random drug screens, domestic violence programs, and anger management, failed to cooperate and thus, permanently-neglected the children by failing to plan for their return. The mother continually refused to engage in services, and maintained that she would not comply with referred services absent court order (see e.g. Matter of Darryl Clayton T. [Adele L.], 95 AD3d 562, 562-563 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Marah B. [Lee D.], 95 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]; Matter of Tanisha Shabazz A. [Latisha G.], 91 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2012]).
The finding that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the subject children's best interests was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 143-144 [1984]; Matter of Anthony P. [Shanae P.], 84 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Racquel Olivia M., 37 AD3d 279, 280 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]).
Moreover, in light of the mother's failure to address the circumstances that resulted in the children's placement in foster care, termination of her parental rights rather than a suspended judgment is warranted (see Matter of Charles Jahmel M. [Charles E.M.], 124 AD3d 496, 497 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 905 [2015]).
Concur—Tom, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.