Matter of Emily Rosio G. (Milagros G.)

Matter of Matter of Emily Rosio G. (Milagros G.) 2011 NY Slip Op 09009 Decided on December 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 December 15, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6332

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

and

Milagros G., Respondent-Appellant, The Children's Aid Society, et al., Petitioners-Respondents.




Randall S. Carmel, Syosset, for appellant.
Rosin Steinhagen Mendel, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of
counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy
Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about October 15, 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 the Administration for Children's 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 the mother was repeatedly reminded of her need to complete the programs in order to regain custody. Despite these diligent efforts, the mother failed to complete her service plan in that she did not complete the individual counseling requirement, despite evidence of her emotional instability, which caused the developmentally delayed child to exhibit emotional distress. Furthermore, the mother continued to deny responsibility for the conditions necessitating the child's removal and failed to gain insight into how to best accomplish her parental duties and address the child's special needs (see e.g. Matter of Irene C. [Reina M.], 68 AD3d 416 [2009]).

The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the child's best interests were served by terminating the mother's parental rights (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). The child was thriving in the home environment provided by her foster mother, who tended to her special needs and wished to adopt her. [*2]

A suspended judgment was not warranted under the circumstances presented (see generally Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK