Matter of Irene C. (Reina M.)

Matter of Irene C. (Reina M.) 2009 NY Slip Op 08878 [68 AD3d 416] December 1, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Irene C., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Reina M., Appellant; Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Respondent.

—[*1] Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.

Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Marion C. Perry of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Patricia Colella of counsel), Law Guardian.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sara P. Schechter, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's contention that the petition was defective in that it did not specify the steps taken by the agency to strengthen the parent-child relationship (Family Ct Act § 614 [1] [c]), is unpreserved as respondent never moved to dismiss the petition on such grounds (see e.g. Matter of Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d 367 [2007]). Were we to review it, we would find that the allegations were more than sufficient to put respondent on notice of the nature of the proceedings against her.

Furthermore, the evidence at the hearing was clear and convincing with respect to both the agency's diligent efforts and respondent's failure to plan for her daughter. The evidence showed that the agency made diligent efforts at reunification through referral of respondent to parenting-skills workshops, domestic violence programs, counseling programs, and arranging scheduled visitations (see Gina Rachel L., 44 AD3d at 368). Despite these efforts, respondent [*2]continued to deny responsibility for her past neglect of her daughter and lacked insight into her duties as a parent (see Matter of S. Children, 210 AD2d 175 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 807 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Roman, JJ.