Matter of Jamal N. (Shanikqua N.)

Matter of Jamal N. v Shanikqua N. 2011 NY Slip Op 08209 Decided on November 15, 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 November 15, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6029

[*1]In re Jamal N., and Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Shanikqua N., Respondent-Appellant, Seaman's Society for Children and Families, Petitioner-Respondent.




John J. Marafino, Mount Vernon, for appellant.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Kenneth G. Roberts of counsel),
attorney for the children.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about November 23, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and committed the guardianship and custody of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding of permanent neglect is supported by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed substantially and continuously to maintain contact with or plan for the future of her children despite the diligent efforts by both agencies involved in this case to strengthen her bond with the children (see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a], [f]; Matter of Sheila G., 61 NY2d 368 [1984]). The agencies provided referrals for appropriate services, made suitable arrangements for visitation, and referred respondent for additional services when it became clear that she was unable to manage the children, who have special needs. However, respondent missed more than half of her scheduled visits and appeared late for most of the remainder (see Matter of Gin Ho S., 192 AD2d 466 [1993]).

A preponderance of the evidence establishes that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate respondent's parental rights to them (see Matter of Khalil A. [Sabree A.], 84 AD3d 632 [2011]). The children have been residing in a stable and nurturing environment with their foster mother, who is willing and able to adopt them (see Matter of Fernando Alexander
B. [Simone Anita W.], 85 AD3d 658 [2011]). In view of the foregoing, a suspended judgment was not appropriate.

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

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK