Matter of Sukwa Sincere G. (Shamiqua Latisha S.)

Matter of Sukwa Sincere G. v Shamiqua Latisha S. 2011 NY Slip Op 07494 Decided on October 25, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 25, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
5819

[*1]In re Sukwa Sincere G., A Dependent Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Shamiqua Latisha S., Respondent-Appellant, Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, et al., Petitioners-Respondents.




Daniel R. Katz, New York, for appellant.
Magovern & Sclafani, New York (Frederick J. Magovern of
counsel), for respondents.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith
Waksberg of counsel), and Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
LLP, New York (David A. Lewis of counsel), attorneys for the
child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about May 17, 2010, which, inter alia, 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 Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). The record shows that the agency acted diligently by issuing several referrals for the mother to attend programs mandated by her service plan, and caseworkers repeatedly reminded the mother of her need to complete the programs in order to regain custody. Despite these diligent efforts, in the four years since the child's removal, the mother failed to complete her service plan in that she did not complete mental health treatment and never enrolled in a drug treatment program (see Matter of Aniya Evelyn R. [Yolanda R.], 77 AD3d 593 [2010]; Matter of Lady Justice I., 50 AD3d 425 [2008]).

A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the best interests of the child were served by the termination of the mother's parental rights (Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The evidence demonstrated that the child had been provided a loving and stable home environment by his paternal grandmother, who wished to adopt him. Furthermore, contrary to the mother's contention, a suspended judgment was not
warranted under the circumstances (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. [*2]

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2011

CLERK